Brownfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““*** Appellees assert that the power to zone is necessarily subordinate to the power to condemn property, and that because the state has the power to take the subject property by eminent domain, the proposed halfway house is absolutely immune from local zoning laws. Although this approach has some precedential support, logic and public policy considerations dictate that we reject it. “The principal case adopting the theory espoused by appellees is State, ex rel. Ohio Turnpike Comm., v. Allen (1952), 158 Ohio St. 168 , certiorari denied 344 U. S. 865 . One of the arguments propounded by the respondent in Allen was that the proposed Ohio Turnpike was to pass through territory that had been zoned, and that the turnpike would constitute a use in violation of the local zoning ordinances. This court, relying upon Doan v. Cleveland Short Line Ry. Co. (1915), 92 Ohio St. 461 , rejected that argument, and held that zoning restrictions do not apply to state agencies vested with the power of eminent domain. “The AUm court’s reliance upon Doan was misplaced, however. Doan merely held that restrictive covenants imposed by a subdivision developer cannot be enforced against agencies possessing the power to condemn. This court’s decision in Doan was based upon the reasoning that: “ ‘The right of eminent domain rests upon public necessity, and a contract or covenant, or plan of allotment, which attempts to prevent the exercise of that right is clearly against public policy and is therefore il”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of East Cleveland v. Board of County Commissioners

2. ““*** Where compliance with zoning regulations would frustrate or significantly hinder the public purpose underlying the acquisition of property, a court should consider, inter alia [1] the essential nature of the government-owned facility, [2] the impact of the facility upon surrounding property, and [3] the alternative locations available for the facility, in determining whether the proposed use should be immune from zoning laws.” Id. at 286-287.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of East Cleveland v. Board of County Commissioners

3. ““* * * Appellants have not referred this court to any statute, nor has independent research disclosed one, authorizing the maintenance of an injunctive action directly against the state of Ohio in a Court of Common Pleas. We do not believe that the state has consented to such a suit in that forum. For this reason, we hereby dismiss the state of Ohio as a party to this cause.” (Footnotes omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Friedman v. Johnson