In re Copley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
When considering the allowance or denial of the extraordinary writs alluded to in the Constitution, 1 courts and litigants should always be mindful of the limitations historically and classically inherent in the employment of those vital implements.2
This is not to say that case law must be, or is, inflexible. As our society continually churns, new demands are made upon its institutions. When those demands have matured and stabilized, our courts have recognized and accommodated them. See, e. g., the opinion in Freeman v. Maxwell, Warden (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 4, 210 N. E. 2d 885. However, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Tate v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Phillip Morris v. Hiram Schoonfield, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- In Re BursonOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- Freeman v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Thomas v. HuffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Eugene E. Williams v. E. P. Perini, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- Karr v. BlayDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1976
- Sykes v. KreigerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.