[Cite as Painesville Mini Storage, Inc. v. Painesville , 124 Ohio St.3d 504, 2010-Ohio-920.]

P AINESVILLE M INI S TORAGE , I NC ., A PPELLANT , v. C ITY OF P AINESVILLE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Painesville Mini Storage, Inc. v. Painesville , 124 Ohio St.3d 504, 2010-Ohio-920.] Appropriation proceedings — Claim of interference with property rights was barred by statute of limitations — Claimed interference was a one-time event, not a continuing violation — Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. (No. 2009-1616 — Submitted March 9, 2010 — Decided March 16, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County,

No. 2008-L-092, 2009-Ohio-3656.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion of appellee, city of Painesville, for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the petition of appellant, Painesville Mini Storage, Inc., for a writ of mandamus to compel the city to commence an appropria tion proceeding for its alleged taking of appellant’s property. {¶ 2} Regardless of whether the R.C. 2305.07 six-year statute of limitations or the R.C. 2305.09(E) four-yea r statute of limitations applies to appellant’s takings claim, the claim is barred. See State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie
MetroParks , 124 Ohio St.3d 449, 2010-Ohio-606, 923 N.E.2d 588, ¶ 30; see also State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State , 98 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-6716, 780 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 30-31 (a case decided prior to the enactment of R.C. 2305.09(E) in which the court held that the six-year limita tion period of R.C. 2305.07 was appropriate for mandamus actions brought to compel appropriation proceedings). Appellant did not raise its takings claim in th e underlying mandamus action until June 2008,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 more than six years after September 2000, when the city issued to J.B.H. Properties, Inc., the building permit that appellant claims constituted a taking of its private property. {¶ 3} Finally, the continuous-violation doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations, because the city did not perf orm any additional challenged actions after it issued the permit. Every event that occurred thereafter “was merely a continuation of the effects of that solitary event rather than the occurrence of new
discrete acts.” Nickoli at ¶ 33; see also Ohio Midland, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (C.A.6, 2008), 286 Fed.Appx. 905, 912, 2008 WL 2622665, quoting
Tenenbaum v. Caldera (C.A.6, 2002), 45 Fed.Appx. 416, 419, 2002 WL 2026347 (“ ‘the present effects of past [violati ons] * * * do not trigger a continuing violations exception’ ” to the statute of limitations). {¶ 4} We deny the city’s request for oral argument because the parties’
briefs are sufficient to resolve this case. State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v.
Brunner , 123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761, 913 N.E.2d 967, ¶ 25. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER , J., dissents and would grant a writ of mandamus.

__________________ Paul V. Wolf, for appellant. Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller C o., L.P.A., John T. McLandrich, Frank H. Scialdone, and Tami Z. Hannon, for appellee.

______________________