Ball v. Maxwell

204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1965
DocketNo. 39171
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 204 N.E.2d 62 (Ball v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ball v. Maxwell, 204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560 (Ohio 1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action, petitioner is attacking only the validity of his 1961 convictions. Inasmuch as petitioner is still subject to detention under his 1960 convictions habeas corpus does not lie. To entitle one to relief by habeas corpus a determination of the action in petitioner’s favor must effectuate a release from present confinement. Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 178; Neal v. Maxwell, Warden, 176 Ohio St. 206; and Lowther v. Maxwell, Warden, 175 Ohio St. 39.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Complaint of Totten v. Collins, 08ap-257 (8-19-2008)
2008 Ohio 4185 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Thomas
400 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
Flowers v. Haskins
267 N.E.2d 430 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 N.E.2d 62, 1 Ohio St. 2d 77, 30 Ohio Op. 2d 145, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-maxwell-ohio-1965.