The latest in a case we've been following doesn't get to the substantive issue: is a local park district authorized to take private property for a bike path when the statute authorizes takings for "conservation of natural resources?"
Instead, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for a familiar reason: lack of a final judgment. In Mill Creek Metro. Park District v. Less, No. 2022-0628 (July 11, 2023), the court did not consider the issue, but instead concluded the trial court proceedings were not yet final.
Here's how the case set up procedurally. The district instituted state court eminent domain actions to take Less's land for the bike path. Less objected, asserting that the district lacked the power to take land for a bike path. Less sought summary judgment on that issue, which the trial court denied. Normally, in the absence of some kind of interlocutory appeal, denials of summary judgment are not final, appealable orders. But the court of appeals ruled on the merits of the appeal, after concluding that the denial of Less's motion for summary judgment had the same effect as an entry of summary judgment in favor of the district.
Not so fast, held the Ohio Supreme Court:
{¶ 12} An order denying summary judgment is not the type of order contemplated by R.C. 163.09(B)(3), because the denial of summary judgment is not a ruling “in favor of the agency in any of the matters the owner denied in the answer”; to the contrary, it is a ruling that demonstrates that there are genuine issues of material fact and therefore the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, see Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). In other words, the denial of summary judgment merely leads to further proceedings in the trial court. See Balson v. Dodds, 62 Ohio St.2d 287, 405 N.E.2d 293 (1980), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewable on appeal by the movant from a subsequent adverse final judgment”)....If the trial court rules in favor of the agency at the hearing, the case may then proceed to a jury trial to determine compensation unless the landowner exercises his or her right under R.C. 163.09(B)(3) to immediately appeal the trial court’s decision. R.C. 163.09 does not, however, give the landowner the right to an immediate appeal from the trial court’s order denying his or her summary-judgment motion. That order is not final and appealable.
Slip op. at 7.
No final order, no appellate jurisdiction.
The court of appeals held that taking of a bike path is beyond the district's statutory authority to take because a bike path isn't a forest reserve, nor is it the conservation of natural resources, even though under a very generous and deferential reading of the statute, a bike path kinda, sorta, could be the conservation of a natural resource. To hold otherwise, the court concluded, means nearly anything could be the conservation of natural resources.
More on the case here: "Ohio Supreme Court Decision Explains Eminent Domain Procedures" (Morning Ag Clips)
So now we shall have to wait a bit more for the final answer from the Ohio Supreme Court (if any).
Mill Creek Metro. Park District v. Less, No. 2022-0628 (Ohio July 11, 2023)
