Ohio Supreme Court, 1990

Silcott v. Dahlberg

Silcott v. Dahlberg
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 21, 1990 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
49 Ohio St. 3d 51; 550 N.E.2d 477; 1990 Ohio LEXIS 75

Silcott v. Dahlberg

Opinion of the Court

The motion to dismiss is sustained and the cause is dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents.

Dissenting Opinion

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. I would not grant bail, but I dissent from the dismissal of this cause because habeas corpus is the proper remedy to establish, if appropriate, post-conviction bail. See, generally, In re DeFronzo (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 271, 3 O.O. 3d 408, 361 N.E. 2d 448. I would remand this cause to the court of appeals for a Crim. R. 46 bail determination.

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