Legal Opinion

In re Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1977No. 77-244PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The courts of this state haye the power to summarily punish an individual for contempt. The alleged errors asserted by petitioner do not attack the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas to sentence him for contempt. The purpose of habeas corpus is to inquire into alleged unlawful restraints of liberty and it is not the proper remedy to inquire into non-jurisdictional errors or irregularities. See Baker v. Sacks (1961), 172 Ohio St. 340.

Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is not available as a means of relief where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re PiazzaOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Lesher v. KainradOhio Supreme Court · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API