Ohio
How Burlington Northern R.R. v. Iowa applies in Ohio: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Property.
Ohio generally adheres to similar principles regarding regulatory takings as outlined in Burlington Northern R.R. v. Iowa. The state follows the Penn Central test in evaluating whether a regulatory action has resulted in a taking that requires just compensation.
In Ohio, a regulatory taking requires that the regulation has resulted in a substantial interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, applying the balancing test established in the Penn Central case.
The court ruled that the city’s zoning ordinance enacted without compensation effectively resulted in a regulatory taking due to substantial interference with property rights.
In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the city's use of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power that did not constitute a taking.
The court found that an ordinance that did not allow property owners to develop their land constituted a regulatory taking, thereby entitling them to compensation.
While Ohio generally mirrors the federal standard set forth in Burlington Northern R.R. v. Iowa by using a balancing test that focuses on the severity of interference with property rights, it tends to be more permissive in upholding local zoning regulations compared to federal rulings, which sometimes compel greater scrutiny.
Property issues surrounding regulatory takings are frequently tested on the Ohio bar exam, specifically in the context of assessing the application of the Penn Central test.