APPEALS NOT ALLOWED FOR REVIEW, 95 Ohio St.3d 1411 (2002)

765 N.E.2d 878Supreme Court of Ohio.
2002.

APPEALS NOT ALLOWED FOR REVIEW
Announcements April 4, 200202-102. Physicians Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Univ. of Cincinnati Hosp.Aring Neurological Inst.
Franklin App. No. 01AP-373.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.

02-128. Connors v. Bridgestone Tire Rubber Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 79645.

Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

02-153. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.

Lorain App. No. 01CA007848.

Douglas and Cook, JJ., would allow on Proposition of Law No. I.

F.E. Sweeney, J., would allow.

02-161. Kinney v. Kroger Co.

Franklin App. No. 01AP-443.

F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.

02-186. In re Jones.

Franklin App. No. 01AP-376.

Page 1412

Moyer, C.J., would allow on Proposition of Law No. I.

Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., would allow.

02-291. Pillo v. Stricklin.

Stark App. No. 2001CA00204.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent, would allow the appeal, and would hold this cause for the decision in 01-1709, Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., Certified Question of State Law, No. 9300CV07799.