Legal Opinion

State v. Hughes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1986No. 86-340PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Per curiam

The question to be resolved is whether appellants should be discharged from liability on this bail bond under the circumstances of the instant case. Appellants contend that in causing Hughes’ arrest and incarceration in Chicago, so that he could be extradited to Ohio, they had done everything within their capability to produce Hughes in court and thus should be exonerated from their obligation on the bond. The subsequent act of the Cook County court in freeing Hughes on bond was, appellants claim, an act which relieved them from responsibility on their bond.

We are not persuaded, however, that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Taylor v. TaintorSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Bland v. HoldenOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State, Ex Rel. Howell v. Schiele, Treas.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. State Ex Rel. Howell v. SchieleOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  5. State v. OhayonOhio Court of Appeals · 1983

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. State v. SchererOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. State v. American Bail Bond AgencyOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. State v. HolmesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. BerryOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. State v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 2003

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API