State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. City of Akron

90 Ohio St. 3d 536 (Ohio 2001) · Supreme Court of Ohio · January 17, 2001

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the City of Akron to commence appropriation proceedings for an alleged taking or damaging of the relators' property. The court held that the relators' affidavits were insufficient because they were based on belief rather than personal knowledge and that the properly submitted evidence did not establish a physical invasion, substantial interference with access, or abandonment of city property.

Holdings

  1. An original mandamus complaint must be supported by an affidavit from the relator or counsel that is based on personal knowledge and specifies the details of the claim; affidavits based merely on belief or speculation do not satisfy the requirement.
  2. Relators were not entitled to a writ of mandamus because they failed to prove a clear legal right to appropriation proceedings, a corresponding clear legal duty by Akron, and the facts necessary to establish a compensable taking.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether relators established a clear legal right and Akron had a clear legal duty to commence appropriation proceedings based on an alleged physical taking or interference with access.
  2. Whether relators' affidavits and complaint complied with the requirement that an original mandamus complaint be supported by an affidavit based on personal knowledge.
  3. Whether the evidence established a physical invasion of relators' property, a substantial or unreasonable interference with access to public streets, or abandonment of the property by Akron.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (10)

  • State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St. 3d 33, 34, 656 N.E.2d 332, 333 (Ohio 1995)(followed)
  • State ex rel. BSW Dev. Group v. Dayton, 83 Ohio St. 3d 338, 342, 344, 699 N.E.2d 1271, 1275-1276 (Ohio 1998)(followed)
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2893, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 812-813 (1992)(followed)
  • State ex rel. OTR v. Columbus, 76 Ohio St. 3d 203, 667 N.E.2d 8 (Ohio 1996)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St. 3d 379, 384, 700 N.E.2d 12, 17 (Ohio 1998)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St. 3d 217, 223, 631 N.E.2d 150, 155 (Ohio 1994)(followed)
  • Beauchamp v. CompuServe, Inc., 126 Ohio App. 3d 17, 29, 709 N.E.2d 863, 871 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)(followed)
  • Logan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 84 Ohio St. 3d 1423, 702 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 1998)(followed)
  • Goist v. Seventh Dist. Court, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1452, 680 N.E.2d 1024 (Ohio 1997)(followed)
  • State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St. 3d 153, 155, 707 N.E.2d 496, 498 n.1 (Ohio 1999)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court