Steve Heskett, II v. Athens County, Ohio, No. 13-3461 (6th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a1014n.06 No. 13-3461 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED STEVE HESKETT, II; HESKETT LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ATHENS COUNTY, OHIO; JILL T. THOMPSON; JANE DOE, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dec 04, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: MOORE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and KORMAN, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. In 2000, plaintiffs purchased a parcel of land in Athens County, Ohio. Prior to plaintiffs purchase, one of the buildings on the land had enjoyed tax-exempt status. At some point after plaintiffs purchase of the parcel, defendants reassessed the parcel s value, which ultimately left plaintiffs with a significant tax bill. Plaintiffs filed this action in the district court alleging that, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defendants had violated plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court found that the assessment at issue here was a tax and not a fee and that there were plain, speedy, and * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. No. 13-3461 Heskett, et al. v. Athens County, Ohio, et al. efficient state remedies available to plaintiffs. Accordingly, the district court concluded that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction, and dismissed plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs appealed. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, we find no error in the district court s analysis. The reasoning supporting the judgment for defendants was clearly and persuasively articulated by the district court, and, accordingly, there is no need for a detailed written opinion by this court. Any opinion by us would be duplicative and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment for the reasons stated in that court s opinion. AFFIRMED. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
