Legal Opinion

Stahl v. Shoemaker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1977No. 77-63PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Per curiam

Relative to considering the allowance or denial of extraordinary writs, this court possesses original jurisdiction in habeas corpus by virtue of specific constitutional statement;1 the exercise of such original jurisdiction likewise is constitutionally granted to courts of appeal.2 Our jurisdiction entails the corresponding responsibility to regulate the use by the courts of such extraordinary writ as habeas corpus.3

*353. Consequently, in the cause before, us today, our primary question must concern the appropriateness of the remedy sought. The common and statutory law of this state makes it…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In Re BursonOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Freeman v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. State ex rel. Halak v. CebulaOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. McDuffie v. BerzzarinsOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Burton v. ReshetyloOhio Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Howard v. Catholic Social Services of Cuyahoga County, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State Ex Rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Smirnoff v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1998

38 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