In re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of O'Donnell
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Eastland Woods v. City of Tallmadge (Ohio 1983)
- Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Twin Valley Local School District Board of Education (Ohio 1983)
- Masheter v. Mariemont, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appellants were entitled to have the trial court instruct the jury in accordance with the principle enunciated in paragraph three of the syllabus of Sowers v. Schaeffer (1951), 155 Ohio St. 454, which provides:
“The rule of valuation in a land appropriation proceeding is not what the property is worth for any particular use but what it is worth generally for any and all uses for which it might be suitable, including the most valuable uses to which it can reasonably and practically be adapted.”
Inasmuch as it is clear from the record in this case that the trial court refused to so instruct the jury over objection by counsel for appellants, we determine that there is error prejudicial to appellants and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. See, also, Cincinnati & Springfield Ry. Co. v. Longworth (1876), 30 Ohio St. 108; Bd. of County Commrs. v. Thormyer (1959), 169 Ohio St. 291.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.