In re Popp
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
Two fundamental questions are presented in this appeal: (1) Should a petition for a writ of habeas corpus he dismissed because the petitioner has *144been released from confinement? If the answer is negative, (2) does an indigent have the right to conrt-appointed counsel in hearings pursuant to R. 0. 5122.15 where he may be confined to a mental institution?
Regarding the issuance of a writ, this court has held that “the purpose of a proceeding in habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the present restraint of the prisoner.” Page v. Green (1963), 174 Ohio St. 178. Since the filing of…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- In re FisherOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- In re CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- McDuffie v. BerzzarinsOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Burton v. ReshetyloOhio Supreme Court · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.