Case ID: ohio-st-3d_100/html/0066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barnhill et al., Appellants, v. City of Hamilton, Appellee.
    [Cite as Barnhill v. Hamilton, 100 Ohio St.3d 66, 2003-Ohio-5029.]
    (No. 2002-1575
    Submitted September 17, 2003
    Decided October 8, 2003.)
    O’Connor, Acciari & Levy, L.L.C., Barry D. Levy and Michael D. Weisensel, for appellants.
    Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., Wilson G. Weisenfelder Jr. and Laura I. Munson, for appellee.
   {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is affirmed on the authority of Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088.

2} Proposition of Law No. II is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.