Legal Opinion

In re Pullins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1951No. 32125Published

1Per curiam

A proceeding in habeas corpus cannot be used to review alleged errors or irregularities in the proceedings or sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction. Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St., 81; Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St., 426; In re Allen, 91 Ohio St., 315, 326, 110 N. E., 535; State, ex rel. Drexel, v. Alvis, Warden, 153 Ohio St., 244, 91 N. E. (2d), 22. An adequate remedy at law is afforded by way of review on appeal when the trial court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter. In re Whitmore, 137 Ohio *172St., 313, 29 N. E. (2d), 363; In re Burson, 152 Ohio St., 375, 89 N. E. (2d),…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re BursonOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. In Re LevensonOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. In Re WhitmoreOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  4. State Ex Rel. Drexel v. AlvisOhio Supreme Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API