Ohio courts weigh landfill-related lawsuits

WIN Waste Innovations is involved in several lawsuits across Ohio, with two cases filed this year leading the latest developments. According to court records, the company filed one case in Seneca County Common Pleas Court in May and another in federal court the same month. WIN Waste v. Seneca County Board of Health Filed in May in Seneca County Common Pleas Court, this case alleges the Seneca County Board of Health violated Ohio's open meetings and public records laws. The complaint states the board failed to adopt a rule for meeting notifications, provide sufficient notice of special meetings, keep full and accurate minutes and limit executive sessions to approved purposes. WIN asks the court to declare the board violated state law, issue injunctions requiring compliance, prohibit improper executive sessions, impose a $500 civil forfeiture for each violation and award court costs and attorney fees. The board moved to dismiss several counts for failure to state a claim. WIN responded; the department replied and moved to strike portions of WIN's response. All pending motions were heard Oct. 9, but no ruling has been posted, according to court records. WIN Waste v. Seneca County General Health District et al Filed in May in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, this case names the Seneca County General Health District, the Board of Health and current and former board members in official and personal capacities. WIN alleges the defendants engaged in a campaign to harass the company and interfere with its operations, citing bias against out-of-state waste and collusion with activist groups. The complaint accuses board members of making false statements, displaying anti-landfill signs, misusing executive sessions, violating public records laws and imposing unlawful conditions on WIN's operating licenses. WIN asks the court to declare the board acted outside its authority, find that the license conditions and denial of the 2025 license violate the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause, permanently bar enforcement of those conditions and award attorney fees and costs. Defendants moved to dismiss in July, arguing the court should abstain under the Burford doctrine because the case involves Ohio's regulatory scheme for landfill licensing. They also cited 11th Amendment immunity and claimed WIN failed to state a claim under any theory. WIN opposed in August; arguing that abstention is improper because the case seeks to remedy constitutional violations, not state policy disputes. WIN also challenged immunity and asserted the license conditions to discriminate against out-of-state waste and deprive the company of due process. Defendants replied later that month, reiterating their arguments. No further action has been recorded since the reply. Seneca County Board of Health v. WIN Waste Innovations Filed in April 2024 in Seneca County Common Pleas Court and later removed to federal court, this case alleges WIN Waste violated state law and seeks an injunction. According to court records, multiple status conferences were held this year to address discovery disputes and scheduling. A bench trial is set for February 2026. WIN Waste v. Board of Zoning Appeals for Washington Township Filed in April 2024 in Hancock County Common Pleas Court, this case involves WIN's appeal of the Washington Township Zoning Board's denial of a zoning certificate to construct a pond. The court ruled in October that the denial was improper and ordered the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant the application. The board filed an appeal in September, and filings are ongoing. WIN Waste v. OSS Solid Waste Management District Filed in December 2023 in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court, this case challenged a district rule governing landfill construction approvals. WIN argued the rule exceeded OSS authority and infringed on Ohio EPA's regulatory power. The case was dismissed without prejudice in December 2024. WIN Waste v. Coppeler et al Filed in September 2024, this case challenged an amended version of the same rule and alleged constitutional violations. It was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025 after the defendants moved to dismiss. Court records show the cases vary in scope and complexity, and several remain active with hearings and trials scheduled into 2026.