Cincinnati v. Vester

Background

A group of people who owned land in the City of Cincinnati sued to stop the city from taking more land than needed for a street-widening project. The city had validly taken a 25-foot strip for widening Fifth Street, but also passed resolutions seeking to appropriate additional private lots nearby. The owners argued the extra takings were not shown to be for a public use and that Ohio law requires the city to state the specific purpose of any appropriation. Lower courts entered permanent injunctions in favor of the owners, and those rulings reached this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the city could lawfully take land in “excess” of what the street project required without defining a definite purpose. The Court said Ohio law and the city’s own rules require the council to define the purpose of any appropriation. The city’s broad statements that the takings were “in furtherance” of the street widening were not a sufficient definition. The Court refused to accept hypothetical future uses or to guess at unspecified plans. Because the required statement of purpose was missing, the takings did not comply with state law, and the Court affirmed the injunctions. The Court did not decide the separate constitutional question about public use under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Real world impact

Cities must state a specific, limited purpose before taking extra private property for projects. Property owners gain protection against vague or speculative municipal takings, and municipal projects cannot be used as a cover for undefined land seizures.