Legal Opinion

Borsick v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1995No. 95-275PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. We have recognized that “in certain extraordinary circumstances when there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty, habeas corpus will lie notwithstanding the fact that only nonjurisdictional issues are involved, but only where there is no adequate legal remedy, e.g., appeal or postconviction relief.” State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26, 29. Here, appellant’s remedy is appeal. “[T]he proper remedy for seeking judicial review of the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy is a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Wenzel v. EnrightOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Beaver v. KontehOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Dix v. McAllisterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Beaver v. KontehOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Dix v. McAllisterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Massimiani v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024

2 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