Question not identified.

No question identified. : [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel, Duncan v. Mentor, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3115.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION No. 2023-OHI0-3115 THE STATE EX REL. DUNCAN, APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF MENTOR, APPELLEE. [Until thisépinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State’ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3115.] owner had adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for his takings claim and was not entitled to writ to commence appropriation proceedings—Court of appeals lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction over property owner’s remaining claims—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. (No. 2023-0336—Submitted June 27, 2023—Decided September 7, 2023.) ApPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 2022-L-106, 2023-Ohio-416. SUPREME €OURT OF OHIO Per Curiam. {¥ 1} Appellant, Richard Duncan, filed a complaint in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals requesting a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the city of Mentor, to commence appropriation proceedings for an alleged taking of his property. The Eleventh District granted Mentor’s motion to dismiss Duncan’s complaint, and he now appeals. We affirm the Eleventh District’s judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {4 2} Duncan’s complaint averred that he owned a three-acre parcel of land in Mentor which included a pond and that in 2021, he applied to Mentor for a permit that would allow him to place a houseboat on the pond. It further stated that after Mentor denied the permit, Duncan appealed the denial to Mentor’s Board of Building and Zoning Appeals (the “zoning board”) and that the zoning board rejected Duncan’s appeal after a hearing. {J 3} In November 2022, Duncan filed a complaint in the Eleventh District. He argued tkat the denial of the permit constituted a taking of his property, and he requested a writ of mandarhus to compel Mentor to commence appropriation proceedings. The complaint also included three additional counts: a count to quiet title, a count to “estop” Mentor from enforcing or giving effect to the regulations it relied on to deny the permit, and a count titled “Landlocked Properties Must Get Access” in which Duncan asserted that Mentor illegally refused him use of several easements. {4 43} Mentor filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Eleventh District granted Mentor’s motion and dismissed Duncan’s complaint. Regarding the takings claim, the Eleventh District found that Duncan had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not appeal the zoning board’s decision to the court of common pleas. The Eleventh District also dismissed Duncan’s other three counts for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. January Term, 2023 { 5} Duncan appealed to this court as of right. I. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review {¥ 6} We review de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 303, 2018-Ohio-8, 95 N.E.3d 382, 910. In conducting this review, we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and to affirm the dismissal, it must appear beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts that would entitle the relator to the relief requested. Id. We also review de novo decisions granting a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and regarding that issue, we consider w