Ohio Supreme Court, 1977

In re Smith

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 15, 1977 · Bbown, Celebbezze, Hebbeet, Looheb, Neill, Sweeney

50 Ohio St. 2d 192; 364 N.E.2d 17; 4 Ohio Op. 3d 382; 1977 Ohio LEXIS 403

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Epstein v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (3-13-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad (Ohio 1981)

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.

The courts of this state haye the power to summarily punish an individual for contempt. The alleged errors asserted by petitioner do not attack the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas to sentence him for contempt. The purpose of habeas corpus is to inquire into alleged unlawful restraints of liberty and it is not the proper remedy to inquire into non-jurisdictional errors or irregularities. See Baker v. Sacks (1961), 172 Ohio St. 340.

Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is not available as a means of relief where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In re Piazza (1966), 7 Ohio St. 2d 102.

Petitioner’s proper remedy is by way of appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, Celebbezze, W. Bbown, P. Bbown, Sweeney and Looheb, JJ., concur.

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