Ohio Supreme Court, 1966

In re Piazza

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 6, 1966 · Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neilh, Schneider, Taut, Zimmerman

7 Ohio St. 2d 102; 218 N.E.2d 459; 36 Ohio Op. 2d 84; 1966 Ohio LEXIS 323

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State Ex Rel. Hassink v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (12-21-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Daniel v. State (Ohio 2003)
In re Coleman (Ohio 2002)
In re Coleman (Ohio 2002)
State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate (Ohio 1999)
Cornell v. Schotten (Ohio 1994)
Cornell v. Schotten (Ohio 1994)
Harvey v. Bentley (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Wagner ex rel. Luchene v. Wagner (Ohio 1984)
In re Hunt (Ohio 1976)
B.R.K. v. Goldberg (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Bevins v. Richard (Ohio 2015)
State ex rel. Hassan v. Bova (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State ex rel. E.S.B. v. B.E.B. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Kempf v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Lober, 22021 (7-25-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Tisdale v. Eberlin, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Coleman v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Ganim v. Ganim, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Smith v. Bradshaw, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Ohio Apa., Unpublished Decision (4-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
In re C.F. v. Cuyahoga C. Dept., H./ch., Unpublished Decision (1-27-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
In re Rothacker v. McCafferty, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Dowling v. Government of the Virgin Islands (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 2002)
Hurt v. Konteh, Unpublished Decision (7-16-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Section 2501.02, Revised Code, provides in part:

<(# * * ^ addition to the original jurisdiction [of the Court of Appeals] conferred by Section 6 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution, the court shall have jurisdiction:

*103“Upon an appeal upon questions of law to review, affirm, modify, set aside or reverse judgments or final orders of courts of record inferior to the Court of Appeals within the district, including the finding, order or judgment of a Juvenile Court that a child is delinquent, neglected or dependent, for prejudicial error committed by such lower court * * *.”

Section 2153.17, Revised Code, provides:

“The sections of the Revised Code regulating the manner and grounds of appeal from any judgment, order, or decree rendered by the Court of Common Pleas in the exercise of juvenile jurisdiction shall apply to the Juvenile Court.”

Habeas corpus is not applicable to the present situation. Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and as with every extraordinary remedy is not available as a means of relief where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375. Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal nor may it be resorted to where an adequate statutory remedy for review of the questions presented exists.

Petitioners have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Therefore, the motions to dismiss are sustained.

Motions sustained.

Taut, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neilh, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.