Bottom line
A unanimous Supreme Court of Ohio held that because claims for damages and declaratory relief cannot be brought in an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, res judicata does not bar them in a later action. Those claims belong in a separate case, and the Sixth Circuit's contrary Moore decision was wrongly decided.
The question: does a winning zoning appeal bar a later damages suit?
Sheetz and two related companies proposed a gas station, convenience store, and drive-through restaurant on a former restaurant site in Centerville. The planning commission approved the site plan; on the objectors' appeal, city council reversed. Sheetz then filed two cases in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas: an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506.01, and later a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the city and others, which was removed to the Southern District of Ohio.
Sheetz won the administrative appeal; the common pleas court found that council had taken improper legislative action. The federal court then questioned whether res judicata barred the Section 1983 case and, noting a split between Ohio courts of appeals and the Sixth Circuit, certified the question to the Supreme Court of Ohio: must a party bring affirmative claims for damages and declaratory relief within an R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal to avoid res judicata?
The holding: no, by a unanimous court
The court answered the certified question in the negative. Because a party is not permitted to bring claims for damages and declaratory relief in an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, res judicata does not bar the party from pursuing those claims in a later action.
Justice Deters wrote for the court. Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices Fischer, Brunner, Hawkins, and Shanahan joined, along with Judge Christine Mayle of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Justice DeWine. There was no concurrence or dissent.
The court also concluded that the Sixth Circuit's Moore v. Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2021), was wrongly decided, and said the Ohio appellate decisions it relied on are no longer good law to the extent they allow a Chapter 2506 appeal to be combined with other claims.
The reasoning: the third element of claim preclusion still matters
The opinion proceeds in two steps. The first rejects Centerville's reading of the court's earlier decision in Grava v. Parkman Twp., 1995-Ohio-331, whose syllabus says a valid, final judgment bars "all subsequent actions" arising from the same transaction or occurrence. Grava was overruling an older rule, from Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (1943), confining res judicata to identical causes of action; it did not abolish the requirement that the barred claim be one that was or might have been litigated. Anything Grava might have said on this question would have been dicta, and Grava adopted the Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (1982), whose Section 26 narrows preclusion where a procedural system does not allow every remedy in one action. The court restated the rule:
"a party who is asserting res judicata as a defense must show, in addition to the other three claim-preclusion elements, that the second action raises claims that were or might have been litigated in the first action." (¶ 22)
The second step asks what a Chapter 2506 appeal can hold. Under R.C. 2506.04, the common pleas court may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the decision, or remand it. The appeal is not a vehicle for other causes of action. The court relied on its earlier decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which held that a declaratory judgment claim cannot be combined with a Chapter 2506 appeal and must be filed separately:
"Community Concerned Citizens makes clear that an administrative appeal under R.C. Ch. 2506 cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief." (¶ 28)
That formal barrier decided the case. Sheetz's damages and declaratory claims could not have been litigated in the administrative appeal: "Thus, the third element of claim preclusion is not satisfied, and res judicata is not a bar to the Section 1983 action." (¶ 29). As for the federal authority pointing the other way, the court was direct: "We respectfully conclude that Moore was wrongly decided." (¶ 28).
The court also rejected an election of remedies argument, relying on its earlier decision in Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988), for the point that a declaratory judgment action is available in addition to, or in the alternative to, an administrative appeal.
Why it matters for Chapter 2506 and res judicata practice
It settles the split. Moore had treated a prior Chapter 2506 appeal as preclusive of later Section 1983 claims and pointed to combined or consolidated filings as the proper procedure. The Supreme Court of Ohio has now said those filings are not permitted in the first place.
It closes the hybrid filing. The opinion says Community Concerned Citizens prohibits combining the two, and a footnote adds that it would also prohibit consolidating the administrative appeal with the Section 1983 action. The footnote also calls unsettled whether consolidated cases merge into one, a question with Civ.R. 54(B) finality consequences.
It disciplines the res judicata defense. Grava's "all subsequent actions" language is not the whole test. A party asserting the defense must prove all four elements, including that the second action raises claims that were or might have been litigated in the first. The court distinguished Lycan v. Cleveland, 2022-Ohio-4676, on that ground: the claims there could have been brought in the earlier administrative process.
Know its limits. The court framed the certified question as one of claim preclusion. It did not decide what issue preclusive effect, if any, findings made in the administrative appeal carry in the later case, and it did not reach R.C. 713.16. More on administrative appeals.
Practice pointers
- File separately. Bring the R.C. 2506.01 appeal as its own case and any damages, declaratory, or Section 1983 claims in a separate action. Do not attach a complaint to the notice of appeal or seek consolidation.
- Brief the third element. When res judicata is raised after an administrative appeal, argue whether the first forum could actually have heard the claim. Grava's syllabus alone does not answer that question.
- Use Sheetz in federal court. Where a defendant relies on Moore, Sheetz is the Supreme Court of Ohio's answer on that precise question of Ohio preclusion law.
- Watch issue preclusion. The opinion addresses claim preclusion only. Consider what findings the administrative appeal will produce and how they may be used later.
The opinion
Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided September 15, 2026
Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville, 2026-Ohio-3531
This analysis is published for Ohio attorneys and is not legal advice. It reflects the opinion as released; slip opinions are subject to formal revision before publication in the Ohio Official Reports. Appellate Ohio was not counsel in this case.