By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments this week pitting a suburban Cincinnati city against a couple trying to save their home in a long-anticipated hearing that included a rare outburst of applause by spectators.

The city of Norwood is trying to use eminent domain to seize remaining properties for a developer who wants to build a $125 million project of offices, shops and restaurants. The city says the tax revenue will boost the its economic fortunes.

Homeowners Carl and Joy Gamble say the city abused its authority to seize property by declaring the neighborhood deteriorating, a less severe condition than blighted.

The case is the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court last summer allowed municipalities to seize homes for use by a private developer.

Property rights' advocates, business groups and backers of city planning are watching the Ohio case because of the precedent it could set as more than a dozen states consider bans against governments taking homes to boost economic development.

A decision is expected by summer.

At issue was this line from the Ohio Constitution: ''Private property ought and shall ever be held inviolate, but always subservient to the public welfare.''

Visiting Judge James Brogan challenged the Gambles' attorney to explain what the court should do given last summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision.

''What's the principled way for this court to decide under the Ohio Constitution that it guarantees more protection to the property owner -- property rights -- than the U.S. Supreme Court was prepared to do?'' said Brogan, sitting in for Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who excused herself from the case without giving a reason.

Attorney Dana Berliner said the state leaders who wrote Ohio's constitution recognized there were times when property would have to be subservient to public needs.

''But they were also saying those were important rights. That's something that's not in the U.S. Constitution,'' she said.

Timothy Burke, a lawyer representing Norwood, said deterioration is a common measure when applied to redevelopment projects in cities.

''Deteriorating is a legitimate standard to be used in determining whether or not an urban renewal project and use of eminent domain is appropriate,'' he told the court.

Lawrence Elleman, an attorney for the Norwood developers, said the city's law was very specific in its definition of a rundown neighborhood, including things like ''faulty street arrangements,'' or dead-end streets.

That caught the interest of Chief Justice Thomas Moyer.

Many older neighborhoods have streets that could be called ''faulty in their design,'' said Moyer, who himself lives in Bexley, an older Columbus suburb. ''But people like living on those streets.''

Berliner said the city's standard was far too vague and could apply to almost any neighborhood in Ohio.

''As the members of this court drive home today, I ask you to think about which of the dozens of neighborhoods you pass would not be deteriorating under Norwood's definition,'' Berliner said.

At one point, Brogan asked Burke why the court should pay so much deference to a city council that stands to make $2 million a year in revenue from the project.

Burke responded that the responsibility for determining land use is up to local elected officials.

''They've lived there all their lives, they've walked those neighborhoods, they've seen how it has changed,'' he said.

That prompted Justice Maureen O'Connor to ask. ''Couldn't the same argument be made for the homeowners?''

Several people attending the hearing in support of the Gambles laughed and applauded, leading to a gentle rebuke from Moyer. ''Please, do your applauding outside.''

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger said she was concerned about the origin of the developer's plan.

''Does it make any difference that it appears that the private developer was the one that started this ball rolling?'' she said. ''Should it be of concern when we're talking about whether this is truly public use, or if it's private use with public incidental benefit?''

Burke said the question is moot because the development ultimately was the product of lengthy deliberations between the city and Rookwood Partners.