Toledo Edison Co. v. Harrison Marina, Inc.

Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

Toledo Edison Co. v. Harrison Marina, Inc.

241 N.E.2d 750, 24 Ohio Misc. 298, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 224, 1968 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 211

CourtLucas County Court of Common Pleas

DecidedFebruary 6, 1968

DocketNo. 203379

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.E.2d 750 (Toledo Edison Co. v. Harrison Marina, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lucas County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Toledo Edison Co. v. Harrison Marina, Inc., 241 N.E.2d 750, 24 Ohio Misc. 298, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 224, 1968 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 211 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Sandebs, J.

Question of burden of proof: It is the opinion of the court that the proof of necessity must be upon the condemning authority as was true under R. C. 2709.10, and that the 1967 amendment found in R. C. 163.09(B), is void. The requirement of the new statute placing the burden of proving that the appropriation is unnecessary on the landowner, is in derogation of the Constitution of Ohio, Article I, Section 19.

The Toledo Edison Company has met the burden of proof and the evidence establishes “necessity” within the meaning of Ohio law for appropriating the easement for a transmission line over the Harrison Marina property.

Exceptions for both parties.

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

Sandebs, J.

Question of burden of proof: It is the opinion of the court that the proof of necessity must be upon the condemning authority as was true under R. C. 2709.10, and that the 1967 amendment found in R. C. 163.09(B), is void. The requirement of the new statute placing the burden of proving that the appropriation is unnecessary on the landowner, is in derogation of the Constitution of Ohio, Article I, Section 19.

The Toledo Edison Company has met the burden of proof and the evidence establishes “necessity” within the meaning of Ohio law for appropriating the easement for a transmission line over the Harrison Marina property.

Exceptions for both parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.E.2d 750, 24 Ohio Misc. 298, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 224, 1968 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-edison-co-v-harrison-marina-inc-ohctcompllucas-1968.