749 N.E.2d 290
No. 00-1951.Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted May 16, 2001.
Decided July 5, 2001.
Page 212
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 76082.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority o Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, an Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719.
Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., Cook, and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in judgment.
Cook, J., concurring.
I concur in judgment on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II based on the reasoning set forth in my dissenting opinion in Littrell v. Wigglesworth
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, and in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719. I would dismiss Proposition of Law III as having been improvidently allowed.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.
Cochran Naso and Carmen Naso, for appellant Phyllis Washington.
Robert P. Rutter, for appellant Danielle Washington.
Law Office of Terrence J. Kenneally Associates, Terrence J. Kenneally and John M. Bostwick, Jr., for appellee.