Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)

DecidedJune 25, 1999

DocketNo. 98-A-0075

StatusUnpublished

This text of Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999) (Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seyboldt v. Dadlow, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999), (Ohio Ct.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

Pincite

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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