Foltz v. City of Dayton , 27 Ohio App. 2d 35 ( 1970 )

In my opinion, there is no critical distinction which might remove this case from the application of the law pronounced by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the syllabus of Hagerman v. Dayton (1947), 147 Ohio St. 313.

There is considerable merit in defendants' argument that time has had a depreciating influence upon the holding in theHagerman case, but under the doctrine of stare decisis, any change in existing law must emanate from the Supreme Court of Ohio.