Legal Opinion

Townsend v. McAvoy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1984No. 83-746PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJ. P. Celebrezze, J.

Ordinarily, habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal to challenge the involuntary commitment of an individual pursuant to R.C. 5122.15. Youngs v. Rogers (1981), 65 Ohio St. 2d 27 [19 O.O.3d 223]. However, habeas corpus may be used when challenging the jurisdiction of the court which ordered confinement, regardless of the availability of appeal. In re Lockhart (1952), 157 Ohio St. 192 [47 O.O. 129]. As petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the committing court, habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy.

R.C. 2945.40(A) provides that if a person is found not guilty by reason…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Youngs v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. RohrerOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. State v. Lanzy Western Reserve Psychiatric HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. KinmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. State v. WernerOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. In Re MalkovskyOhio Court of Appeals · 1985

3 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