The opinion
Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 4} The burden of proof for the moving party in a civil contempt action is clear and convincing evidence. See Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 253 , 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980). I would find that relators have failed to meet their burden of proof. Therefore, I dissent.
{¶ 5} While respondents may be proceeding at a pace that is unacceptable to relators, our only mandate to respondents was to proceed “immediately.” We did not set forth any guidelines, let alone a deadline, as to when the appropriations must be completed.
{¶ 6} Respondents have hired surveyors and property appraisers. The surveyors have begun surveying the properties at issue, and the appraisers have begun appraising the properties as the surveys are completed. Both are necessary for appropriation proceedings. Further, respondents attempted to negotiate a global settlement with relators, albeit without success. This hardly constitutes clear and convincing evidence that respondents are in contempt of the writ merely because they are proceeding at a pace that is slower than relators and the court desire. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.