Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook
Reproduced with permission from
David L. Strait and the Franklin County Public Defender Office
Also see Forfeiture.
R.C. Chapter 3767 -- Nuisances.
R.C. 3719.10 -- Nuisance: "Premises or real
estate, including vacant land, on which a felony violation of
Chapter 2925. or
3719. of the Revised Code occurs constitute a nuisance subject to abatement
Chapter 3767. of the Revised Code."
Toledo v. O'Leary, Lucas App. Nos.
2004-Ohio-2462 -- Tow vehicle and trailer carrying race car and
tires not proven to be a public nuisance within the ambit of the Toledo
State ex rel. Pizza v. Recallah (1998), 84
Ohio St. 3d 116 -- Syllabus: "(1)
R.C. 3767.02 does not require proof of
knowledge of, acquiescence to, or participation in the creation or perpetuation
of a nuisance in order to find an owner of a nuisance guilty of the civil
offense of 'maintaining a nuisance.' (2) To the extent that
requires a trial court, upon finding of a nuisance, to issue an injunction
closing a property against its use for any purpose for one year, and to the
extent it allows release from such injunction only through the filing or renewal
of a bond in the full value of the property, the statute violates the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the
United States Constitution, and Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution,
when applied to an owner who did not negligently or knowingly acquiesce to, and
did not participate in the creation or perpetuation of the nuisance. (Lindsay
v. Cincinnati , 172 Ohio St. 127...overruled.)"
State ex rel. Miller v. Anthony (1995), 72
Ohio St. 3d 132 -- Syllabus: "(1) Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution
did not preserve the right to a jury trial in nuisance abatement actions. (2)
The confiscation and sale of personal property used in maintaining a nuisance
and the imposition of a one-year closing order pursuant to
R.C. 3767.06 as well
as the imposition of the tax required by
R.C. 3767.08 are preventive measures,
not penalties imposed for past criminal conduct. Inclusion of these provisions
within the nuisance abatement framework does not transform nuisance abatement
actions into legal actions to which the right to a jury trial attaches. (3) When
the state offers clear and convincing evidence that felony violations of
Chapter 2925 chronically occur on a parcel of property, such evidence is
sufficient to establish that a nuisance exists on such property subject to
abatement in accordance with
R.C. 3719.10." Also see
State ex rel. Freeman v.
(1991), 61 Ohio App. 3d 663 involving a nuisance case initiated by a citizens'
State ex rel. Miller v. Star Struck, Inc.
(1996), 112 Ohio App. 3d 49 -- It was appropriate to close the entire premises
of an adult bookstore, and not merely the arcade area which was the immediate
locus of the nuisance, since the arcade area was not operated as a separate
State ex rel. Pizza v. Tom S.A. Inc.
(1981), 68 Ohio Misc. 19 -- Nuisance statutes may not be used to enjoin a rock
concert based on anticipated drug law violations by members of the audience.
Solly v. Toledo (1966), 2 Ohio St. 2d 16
-- Syllabus: "(1) A charter city may enact legislation, not in conflict with
general laws, authorizing the summary abatement of public nuisances and the
destruction of property used in maintaining such nuisances when reasonably
necessary to effectuate their abatement. (2) No legislation can authorize the
destruction of private property as a public nuisance unless such property comes
within a reasonable legislative definition (by statute or ordinance) of a public
nuisance or is expressly proscribed by valid legislation (i.e. by statute
or ordinance). (3) Anyone who destroys or injures private property in abating
what legislative or administrative officials have determined to be a public
nuisance does so at his own peril, where there has been neither a previous
judicial determination that such supposed nuisance is a public nuisance nor even
an opportunity provided to the owner for an administrative hearing (with
judicial review thereof) on the question as to whether there is a public
nuisance. (4) In such an instance, when sued by the owner, the one destroying
the property may be held liable for damages caused by its destruction unless he
alleges and proves and the trier of the facts finds that what he has destroyed
was a public nuisance and that its destruction was reasonably necessary for
abatement of that nuisance. (6) The owner of property is under no duty to bring
an action to enjoin its threatened wrongful destruction, and failure to do so
will not prevent recovery for damages causing such destruction." Case involved
demolition of two houses.
Return to Index