Whether the Ohio Supreme Court's newly established exhaustion of administrative remedy and ruling that 'if the court of common pleas had reversed the denial of the permit no taking would have occurred' conflicts with this Court's decision in First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles

QUESTIONS PRESENTED INTRODUCTION ; Richard Duncan owns a 3-acre parcel in the City of Mentor, Ohio, where he proposed a houseboat to be placed on the pond which covers a large part of the area. A building permit and variances were denied by the City, so he filed an original writ of mandamus action ; claiming a taking of his property in the Ohio Appeals court. In addition to the Federal 5th amendment action he asserted Ohio’s Article I Section 19 taking clause. After a motion to dismiss was granted, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that Duncan failed to exhaust his administrative remedy under ORC 2506. The justification set forth was that “If the court of common pleas had reversed the denial of permit, “no taking would have occurred”. I. Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts newly established exhaustion of administrative remedy and ruling that . “af the court of common pleas had reversed the denial of the permit no taking would have occurred” directly conflicts with the relevant decision(s) of this Court in First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles 482 U.S. 304, where this Court has mandated just ‘ compensation for temporary takings? II. Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing ~ a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its justification thereof, is erroneous because it conflicts with the case of Negin v. City of Mentor 601 F. Supp 1502 which ruled “Section 2506.01 does not empower state courts to award damages for injuries suffered as a result of erroneous administrative decisions”; ii therefore that common pleas court did not provide an adequate remedy at law which could have provided “complete, beneficial, and .speedy relief’, therefore, Duncan properly filed his original mandamus in the Ohio 11th District Court of Appeal? III. ; Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing . . anew exhaustion of administrative remedy and its justification thereof, is erroneous because it creates a situation analogous to the flawed reasoning as in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank 473 U.S. 172 which was corrected by this Court in Knick v. ; Township of Scott PA, No 17-647 Docket no. 17-647? Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its justification thereof, is erroneous because it apparently : was adopted solely for policy considerations which potentially leads to costly remedy and court burdening litigation inconsistent with the constitutions intent of the 5th Amendment? V. Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its justification thereof, is erroneous because it results , in undesirable results in that it forces Ohio litigants to forgo their concurrent jurisdiction choice of either . Federal or state courts because filing in state courts results in a dead end path? INTERESTED PARTIES There are no