Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Weinle

Citations

• 174 N.E.3d 1270
• 2021 Ohio 2284

Syllabus

INJUNCTION – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE – ANTICIPATORY NUISANCE – TERMS OF INJUNCTION – OVERBROAD: Where plaintiffs residents and the township requested a permanent injunction against defendants' construction of a dirt racetrack, the issues between the parties were ripe and justiciable when the temporary restraining order enjoining the opening of the racetrack expired therefore, the common pleas court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the request for a permanent injunction. The trial court had jurisdiction to enjoin the anticipatory nuisance where defendants were taking steps to complete the dirt track for operation. The trial court did not err in issuing a permanent injunction against the anticipatory nuisance where plaintiffs presented clear and convincing evidence of an actual threat of harm. The terms of an injunction must be narrowly tailored to prohibit only the complained-of activities and specific enough to permit defendants to comply without fear of committing an unwilling violation the trial court may not enjoin activities that are not directly related to the complained-of activities, and therefore, the trial court erred in ordering the removal of items that were not directly related to the operation of the dirt track. The trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs attorney fees where R.C. 3767.03 did not provide a statutory basis for such an award.