Talk:Norwood, Ohio v. Horney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Norwood, Ohio v. Horney is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale.

I am thinking about editing this article to reflect the procedural posture, the issue before the court, exactly what the two sides were arguing, and the grounds on which the Ohio Supreme Court found for the homeowners. I think that because this was the first case involving a state supreme court's interpretation of the 'public use' clause and whether eminent domain can be used for private development after the US Supreme Court Kelo case, this information should be included in the article. Any thoughts? Lawiggin 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely- the fact that this was the first post-Kelo ruling is its strongest argument for notability. 4.229.219.206 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)