Homeowners who argued that their property was taken by the expansion of the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport are entitled to sue the City of Cleveland for damages, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority found owners of a home on the edge of Cleveland Hopkins have standing to argue in court that runway expansions have made the home unsuitable for living. The decision reversed an Eighth District Court of Appeals decision, which found that the homeowners could not sue Cleveland to obtain compensation for their losses because they did not live in Cleveland.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine stated the Ohio Constitution requires the government to pay compensation when it takes private property.

“It applies regardless of whether the property being taken is located in the jurisdiction doing the taking,” he wrote.

The decision keeps alive the condemnation lawsuit of Susan Boggs and Fouad Rachid, who live in a home owned by Fouad Inc. The Supreme Court noted its decision today only concludes the homeowners have standing to present their claim, and whether they will be successful “in establishing an unconstitutional taking remains to be determined.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only.

Owners Upset by Increased Plane Noise, Debris
Fouad Inc. has owned the Olmsted Township home where Boggs and Rachid have lived since 1995. Cleveland Hopkins, which is located entirely within Cleveland, has been in operation since 1925. In 1999, Cleveland began the expansion of two runways. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not require Cleveland to purchase any neighboring properties, but did require them to fund “sound-dampening measures.”

Cleveland obtained easements from various landowners in Olmsted Township for the rights to fly over their property. Boggs declined Cleveland’s offer to purchase an easement.

Boggs claimed that the runway expansion has caused increased air traffic over her home, resulting in noise and vibrations, as well as the emission of fuel and debris onto her property. She testified that she no longer wanted to live there and could not profit from a sale because of the noise and shaking caused by planes.

A government body in Ohio can acquire private property through a formal process known as condemnation proceedings. When a property owner believes the government has taken their property but refuses to pay for it, the property owner may file a claim for inverse condemnation to recover the lost value of the property.

Legal Battle To Acquire Payment Launched
In 2008, Boggs sought a writ of mandamus from the common pleas court directing Cleveland to institute formal proceedings to determine how much Cleveland must compensate her for taking the home.

She alleged the operation of the airport constituted a taking of her property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under other laws. The proceedings shifted to federal court, where efforts to have either the city or the FAA compensate her for the loss in property value continued until 2021. She was unsuccessful in her federal claims. However, the federal district court declined to consider her state law claims, and the case was remanded to common pleas court.

In common pleas court, Cleveland requested summary judgment, arguing Boggs lacked standing to bring the case and had failed to establish that the city had taken her property. The trial court concluded that Boggs lacked standing to pursue her claim.

The court reasoned that a municipality does not have the authority to take property outside of its boundaries unless it is specifically authorized by state law to do so. Since Cleveland had no authority to take property in Olmsted Township, Cleveland cannot be forced into a proceeding to compensate Boggs, the court ruled.

Boggs appealed to the Eighth District, which affirmed the common pleas court decision, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Takings Law
Justice DeWine explained that the issue is whether a property owner is entitled to compensation when a municipal government takes her property, even if she does not live in the municipality that has done the taking. The appeals court said no, unless there is a specific statute allowing the city to acquire property outside of its boundaries. That leaves Boggs and others in her situation “in a conundrum,” he wrote.

The opinion stated the Ohio Constitution guarantees compensation to a property owner whose land was taken for public use, and nothing in the constitution limits this right when a different municipality takes the property than the one in which the property is located. However, under the appeals court’s logic, when the property owner does not reside in the municipality that has taken the property, there is no means available for that property owner to secure the compensation guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution, the Court stated.

The Court wrote that Article 1, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution is unequivocal: “When private property is taken for public use, compensation shall be made to the owner.” The opinion stated that a property owner can seek a writ of mandamus to pursue compensation.

The limitation that a municipality cannot use the power of eminent domain to take property outside of its boundaries does not mean the city does not have to follow the constitution’s command to pay just compensation when it takes property outside of the city limits, the opinion stated.

The Court stated that its case law demonstrates that government actions sometimes have the effect of taking private property in situations in which it has not formally acquired the property by eminent domain. And in those cases, inverse condemnation, such as what Boggs seeks, allows a landowner to seek to recover the value of the property.

The Court noted that Cleveland also claimed that Boggs did not file her lawsuit within the statute of limitations. That issue was not addressed in this appeal. The Court remanded the case to the Eighth District to decide the statute of limitations issue. If Boggs prevails on that issue, the Court stated the case should then be remanded to the trial court to consider her takings claim.

2023-1557. State ex rel. Boggs v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5094.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.