▪ Ohio Court Applies Lingle and Penn Central

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Professor Patty Salkin's Law of the Land blog about a recent Ohio appeals court decision applying Lingle v. Chevron USA, 544 U.S. 528 (2005). 

Lingle didn’t get rid of the “substantially advance” test, it merely relocated it to due process, and reminded us that in those circumstances where there is not a per se taking by wipeout of “beneficial” use (Lucas) or an occupation (Kaiser Aetna, Loretto), courts go back to Penn Central where no factor appears to be dispositive. So even if there is some value or use left in the land, Penn Central could allow for a finding of a taking, depending on the circumstances of the case and how the other elements factor into the calculus.

The opinion in Boice v. Village of Ottawa Hills (No. L-06-1208) (Aug. 31, 2007) is posted here.