Rulli v. Rulli

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                 RULLI, APPELLEE, v. RULLI ET AL., APPELLANTS.
                       [Cite as Rulli v. Rulli, 

.]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
    (No. 97-565—Submitted December 2, 1997—Decided February 11, 1998.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 94 C.A. 134.
                                ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
                                  __________________
        Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman, L.P.A., and John F. Zimmerman,
Jr., for appellee.
        Henderson, Covington, Messenger, Newman & Thomas Co., L.P.A., James
L. Messenger and Jerry M. Bryan, for appellants.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently
allowed.
        MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur.
        DOUGLAS, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
                                  __________________