Case Name: Barnhill et al., Appellants, v. City of Hamilton, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2003-10-08
Citations: 100 Ohio St. 3d 66
Docket Number: No. 2002-1575
Parties: Barnhill et al., Appellants, v. City of Hamilton, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 100
Pages: 66–66

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
{¶ 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.