Shawnee Ridge Hunting, L.L.C. v. LaRose

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court judgment granting Shawnee Ridge Hunting, LLC and Paul Richter a permanent injunction and declaring provisions of H.B. 503 unconstitutional. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing, that the trial court applied the correct injunction standards, and that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague and effected a taking. The court remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting an error in the written order.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs had standing to challenge H.B. 503 because they demonstrated an injury fairly traceable to the statute and redressable by injunctive relief; the temporary lapse in the hunting-preserve license did not eliminate standing.
2. The applicable burden for the facial constitutional challenge was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court actually applied that standard orally; any contrary wording in the written order was a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc entry.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by consolidating the preliminary-injunction hearing with a permanent-injunction hearing under Civ.R. 65(B).
4. The challenged provisions of R.C. 1533.731 and R.C. 1533.75, as enacted by H.B. 503, were void for vagueness and violated due process because ordinary persons could not determine what conduct involving the plaintiffs' pigs was lawful and what conduct was criminal.
5. H.B. 503 effected an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs' property without compensation because it required the immediate and complete dispossession of their hogs or boars without providing a compensation procedure.
6. The rational-basis portion of the trial court's ruling was moot because it depended on the original definition of wild boar or feral swine, which the General Assembly substantively amended after judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Shawnee Ridge and Richter had standing to challenge H.B. 503 despite a temporary lapse in their wildlife-hunting-preserve license.
2. Whether the trial court applied the correct standards of proof and the proper factors in granting a permanent injunction.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by converting the preliminary-injunction hearing into a permanent-injunction hearing under Civ.R. 65(B).
4. Whether the challenged provisions of H.B. 503 were unconstitutionally vague and violated due process.
5. Whether H.B. 503 effected an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs' property without compensation.
6. Whether the trial court's rational-basis ruling remained reviewable after the statutory definition of wild boar or feral swine was substantively amended.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded