On Tuesday, the Ohio State Supreme Court rejected a case in which landowners who were made part of a “unitization order” (i.e. forced pooling) had objected claiming their property rights were stripped away without due process. In legal terms, the landowners claimed it was a “taking” of their property without just compensation. The Supreme Court rejected the case because, they said, there were other legal means the landowners could have tried first (a lower court) before appealing the case direct to the Supremes using something called a mandamus action. In essence, the Supremes said, “Nice try, but you need to jump through the proper hoops first.” Ultimately the Supremes did not rule on the Constitutionality of the claim itself because the case had gotten to them via the wrong path. We’re guessing the landowners will now go back to square one and use the path laid out by the Supremes. Here’s the low down on the rejection by the Supremes, from the legal beagles at the Vorys law firm…
On Tuesday, the Ohio State Supreme Court rejected a case in which landowners who were made part of a “unitization order” (i.e. forced pooling) had objected claiming their property rights were stripped away without due process. In legal terms, the landowners claimed it was a “taking” of their property without just compensation. The Supreme Court rejected the case because, they said, there were other legal means the landowners could have tried first (a lower court) before appealing the case direct to the Supremes using something called a mandamus action. In essence, the Supremes said, “Nice try, but you need to jump through the proper hoops first.” Ultimately the Supremes did not rule on the Constitutionality of the claim itself because the case had gotten to them via the wrong path. We’re guessing the landowners will now go back to square one and use the path laid out by the Supremes. Here’s the low down on the rejection by the Supremes, from the legal beagles at the Vorys law firm…