Centerville, Sheetz Legal Battle Reaches Ohio Supreme Court

Oral arguments heard on Sheetz seeking damages from city for denying gas station permit.

Published on Feb. 12, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The legal battle between the city of Centerville and convenience store chain Sheetz has reached the Ohio Supreme Court. Sheetz is seeking to file for damages against Centerville after a judge ruled in 2025 that the city acted unconstitutionally in denying Sheetz permission to build a new gas station location. Centerville argues the window for Sheetz to seek damages has passed, while Sheetz claims it would be "unjust and unfair" to deny them compensation.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between municipalities and businesses over development decisions, with Sheetz claiming its constitutional rights were violated while Centerville argues it followed proper procedures. The outcome could set precedent on whether companies can seek damages after losing zoning battles with local governments.

The details

In 2025, a judge ruled that Centerville acted unconstitutionally in denying Sheetz permission to build a new gas station along Far Hills Avenue, where an Elsa's Mexican Restaurant currently operates. Now, in a separate lawsuit, Sheetz is seeking to file for damages against the city for lost profits. Centerville's attorneys argue the window for this damage filing has already passed and that Sheetz isn't entitled to compensation. Sheetz's attorney counters that it would be "unjust and unfair" to deny them damages after the city was found to have acted illegally.

  • On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.
  • In 2025, a judge ruled that Centerville acted unconstitutionally in denying Sheetz permission to build a new gas station.

The players

Sheetz

A convenience store chain seeking to build a new gas station location in Centerville, Ohio.

City of Centerville

The local government that denied Sheetz permission to build a new gas station, a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional.

Jaren Hardesty

The attorney representing Sheetz in the case.

Tabitha Justice

The attorney representing the city of Centerville in the case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“To have this court answer whether a party must bring affirmative claims for money damages”

— Jaren Hardesty, Attorney representing Sheetz

“The Sheetz petitioners actually did have a full and fair opportunity to present their constitutional claims”

— Tabitha Justice, Attorney representing Centerville

“It has been found conclusively that the city acted illegally, unconstitutionally arbitrary, arbitrarily, capriciously, etc. The judgment was in favor of the petitioners. It would be unjust and unfair to the petitioners to turn around and say, well, you're not entitled to money damages now.”

— Jaren Hardesty, Attorney representing Sheetz

What’s next

The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether Sheetz can file for damages against the city of Centerville after the city was previously ruled to have acted unconstitutionally in denying the company's permit to build a new gas station.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between businesses and local governments over development decisions, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent on whether companies can seek damages after losing zoning battles with municipalities.