Barnhill v. City of Hamilton

Ohio Supreme Court

Barnhill v. City of Hamilton

100 Ohio St. 3d 66

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 8, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-1575

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Ohio St. 3d 66 (Barnhill v. City of Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnhill v. City of Hamilton, 100 Ohio St. 3d 66 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

{¶ 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ohio St. 3d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhill-v-city-of-hamilton-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack