in their second assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to continue trial because it did not consider the factors in State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 21 O.O.3d 41, 423 N.E.2d 1078. As we overruled appellants’ first assignment of error, finding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants additional time to gather rebuttal evidence, the lower court’s finding of summary judgment in favor of appellees stands. Thus, appellants’ second assignment of error is rendered moot: it is of no consequence to appellants whether we find the trial court to have erred in denying appellants’ request for a continuance of the trial. See James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791, 600 N.E.2d 736, 738 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we will briefly address
holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact holding that courts must decide pure questions of statutory construction recognizing a judges duty to address the jurys questions holding that it is not holding that it is not the duty of a court to decide purely academic or abstract questions