Workman v. Shiplevy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Workman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 671 N.E.2d 10,11.
The court of appeals correctly held that Workman did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) because he did not attach all his pertinent commitment papers. Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 340-341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423. The nunc pro tunc…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bloss v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Brown v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- McBroom v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Messer v. McAninchOhio Supreme Court · 1997
3Cited by12 opinions
- State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Bradley v. HooksOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.