Waid, Director v. Heistand

174 N.E. 139, 122 Ohio St. 615, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 615, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 414, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 233
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 18, 1930·No. 22237·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that said judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed for the reason that the statutes providing for the taking of necessary property by the state for the purpose of the elimination of grade crossings is within the meaning and intent of the *616 provisions of Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, authorizing the taking of private property without first making compensation to the owner, “when taken for the purpose of making or repairing roads which shall be open to the public without charge,” and are therefore valid, and that compensation and damages may be subsequently determined as provided by law. The court coming now to enter the decree which should have been entered by the Court of Appeals it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the injunction heretofore allowed restraining said proceedings be, and the same is hereby, dissolved.

Judgment reversed.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Aleen, JJ., concur.

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

Waid, Director v. Heistand, 174 N.E. 139, 122 Ohio St. 615, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 615, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 414, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 233 (Ohio 1930).

174 N.E. 139 (Waid, Director v. Heistand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Allen v. Ferguson
97 N.E.2d 660 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1951)
Carnabuccio v. Pennsylvania Rd.
16 N.E.2d 1006 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1938)
Burton, Dir. of Law v. Powers
180 N.E. 43 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1932)
Waid v. Heistand
10 Ohio Law. Abs. 414 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1930)