Legal Opinion

Paddock v. Ripley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1948No. 31322PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

Appellants’ claim that the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas county did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter is unfounded.

Section 12161, General Code, provides:

“A person unlawfully restrained of his liberty, or a person entitled to the custody of another, of which custody he is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the.cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.”

Section 10507-8, General Code, provides:

“The wife and husband are the joint natural guardians of their minor children and are equally charged with their care, nurture, welfare…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re LorokOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. In Re MessnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. State, Ex Rel. Clark v. AllamanOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
  4. Patton v. PattonOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
  5. In re RuthFayette County Court of Common Pleas · 1961

4 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