Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided June 25, 1999·No. No. 98-A-0075·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Judgment affirmed. See Opinion and Judgment Entry. [O'NEILL] (FORD) (CHRISTLEY)

CIVIL/REAL PROPERTY:

The order by a chief building official that a building be razed is permissible if it is determined that the building is either a public nuisance or a serious hazard.

When a building is surrounded by debris; it has no exits as the doors have been nailed shut; it has numerous broken windows; it is partially collapsing; and there is no running water, it falls within the definition of a "serious hazard."

The ordering of the demolition of property in order to preserve the public health is not a taking of private property for public use but, rather, the abatement of a public nuisance. A property owner is not entitled to compensation.

Violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code is not a criminal act and, thus, a defendant is not entitled to an attorney.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Judgment affirmed. See Opinion and Judgment Entry. [O'NEILL] (FORD) (CHRISTLEY)

CIVIL/REAL PROPERTY:

The order by a chief building official that a building be razed is permissible if it is determined that the building is either a public nuisance or a serious hazard.

When a building is surrounded by debris; it has no exits as the doors have been nailed shut; it has numerous broken windows; it is partially collapsing; and there is no running water, it falls within the definition of a "serious hazard."

The ordering of the demolition of property in order to preserve the public health is not a taking of private property for public use but, rather, the abatement of a public nuisance. A property owner is not entitled to compensation.

Violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code is not a criminal act and, thus, a defendant is not entitled to an attorney.

Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999) (Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.