The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992,
pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J.
Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the
Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention:
Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your
comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to
the full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to
check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing
Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance
sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page
numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of
the Ohio Official Reports.
Bobersky et al., Appellants, v. City of Youngstown et
al., Appellees.
[Cite as Bobersky v. Youngstown (1992), Ohio St.3d .]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
(No. 91-1336 -- Submitted May 6, 1992 -- Decided June 10,
1992.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County,
No. 90 C.A. 52.
Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Macala Co., L.P.A., Dennis
Haines, Barry Laine and David A. Bobovnyik, for appellants.
Edwin Romero, Law Director, and Cheryl L. Waite, for
appellee city of Youngstown.
Richard J. Mastriana, for appellees Carl and Joann Ross.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, John P. Bartley and Joan C.
Weiser, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources.
This cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been
improvidently allowed.
The court orders that the court of appeals' opinion not
be published in the Ohio Official Reports, and that it may not be
cited as authority except by the parties inter se.
Sweeney, Holmes, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., separately
dissent.
Moyer, C.J., dissenting. Although I agree with the
reasons of Justice Brown that a merit decision should be rendered
in this cause, I would affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
Herbert R. Brown, J., dissenting. This case presents
significant issues of real property law. The issues presented are
not easily resolved under existing law. Thus, it is not
appropriate in this case to render a de facto decision by finding
the appeal to have been "improvidently allowed." This case should
be decided on the merits. Moreover, I think that the decision
reached by the court of appeals should be reversed.
Douglas, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting
opinion.