I.
Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts newly established
exhaustion of administrative remedy and ruling that
"if the court of common pleas had reversed the denial
of the permit no taking would have occurred " directly
conflicts with the relevant decision(s) of this Court
in First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles
482 U.S. 304, where this Court ha.s mandated just
compensation for temporary takings?

II.
Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing
a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its
justification thereof, is erroneous because it conflicts
with the case of Negin v. City of Mentor 601 F. Supp
1502 which ruled "Section 2506.01 does not empower
state courts to award damages for injuries suffered
as a result of erroneous administrative decisions ";
therefore that common pleas court did not provide an
adequate remedy at law which could have provided
"complete, beneficial, and speedy relief ', therefore,
Duncan properly filed his original mandamus in the
Ohio 11th District Court of Appeal?

III.
Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing
a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its
justification thereof, is erroneous because it creates
a situation analogous to the flawed reasoning as
in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank 473 U.S.
172 which was corrected by this Court in Knick v.
Township of Scott PA, No 17-647 Docket no. 17-647?

IV.
Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing
a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its
justification thereof, is erroneous because it apparently
was adopted solely for policy considerations which
potentially leads to costly remedy and court burdening
litigation inconsistent with the constitutions intent of
the 5th Amendment?

V.
Whether the Ohio Supreme Courts ruling establishing
a new exhaustion of administrative remedy and its
justification thereof, is erroneous because it results
in undesirable results in that it forces Ohio litigants
to forgo their concurrent jurisdiction choice of either
Federal or state courts because filing in state courts
results in a dead end path?

Whether the Ohio Supreme Court's newly established exhaustion of administrative remedy and ruling that 'if the court of common pleas had reversed the denial of the permit no taking would have occurred' conflicts with this Court's decision in First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles