Gaskins v. Shiplevy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Gaskins essentially asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying his requested habeas corpus relief based on appellee’s return without first conducting an evidentiary hearing and permitting discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whatever the applicability of a particular Civil Rule, R.C. Chapter 2725 prescribes a basic, summary procedure for bringing a habeas corpus action. *382Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608-609, 653 N.E.2d 659, 661. An evidentiary hearing, discovery, and the physical presence of the petitioner are not always required in habeas corpus proceedings…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Pegan v. CrawmerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Hammond v. DallmanOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Coleman v. McGettrickOhio Supreme Court · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Chari v. VoreOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Christy v. Summit County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Johnson v. Timmerman-CooperOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Agee v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 2001
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.