individual’s protection under Ohio’s eminent domain law but also refines the judiciary’s approach to Ohio constitutional analysis. Part I will set forth the pre-Norwood standard of review in Ohio eminent domain law, which took an increasingly expansive approach to determining what constitutes public use out of deference to the legislature. It will outline the standard of review for eminent domain cases at the federal level following the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Kelo, which upheld the taking of private property for purely economic reasons. Finally, Part I discusses the facts and holding of Norwood, which struck down the taking of private property for purely economic reasons on the authority of the Ohio Constitution. Part II will explore how the Norwood opinion exemplifies Ohio constitutional independence and New Judicial Federalism by grounding its analysis in the Ohio Constitution and departing from the federal paradigm. Part III will consider how Norwood affects judicial deference to legislative authority, given the fine line between judicial deference and judicial abdication and the Court’s emphasis on separation of powers. Finally, Part IV will discuss the legislative clarity required under Norwood’s use of the rarely invoked void-for-vagueness doctrine.
Trafford, Kathleen M.
"City of Norwood v. Horney - Much More Than Eminent Domain: A Forceful Affirmation of the Independent Authority of the Ohio Constitution and the Court's Power to Enforce It,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 48
, Article 3.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol48/iss1/3