In State ex rel. Shelly Materials v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 337, 2007 Ohio 5022, 875 N.E.2d 59, Shelly Materials, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus to order the Clark County Board of Commissioners to institute appropriation proceedings. Shelly initially sought a conditional use permit from the County Board and unsuccessfully appealed the denial of that use permit to the Clark County Court of Common Pleas. Residents analogize their first attempt to seek damages against Rittman to Shelly's first attempt to litigate the issuance of a conditional use permit. Residents argue that their suit for damages against Rittman should not bar their mandamus action because Shelly's conditional use permit suit did not bar its subsequent mandamus action. In analyzing Shelly's mandamus action, however, the Second District Court of Appeals specifically addressed the question of res judicata. State ex rel. Shelly Materials v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2d Dist. No. 2003-CA-72, 2005 Ohio 6682, at P8-9. The Second District relied upon the Ohio Supreme Court's mandate that res judicata does not act to bar a subsequent claim where the subsequent claim poses a different cause of action than the prior claim and relies on different evidence. Id. at P8. The Second District determined that the causes of action and evidence in Shelly's claims were different because Shelly's first claim only sought a use permit and Shelly's second claim sought a writ of mandamus for an alleged taking without just compensation. State ex rel. Shelly Materials at P9. Accordingly, the Second District concluded that res judicata did not bar Shelly's mandamus action. Id.