Bowman v. Alvis

Ohio Court of Appeals

Bowman v. Alvis

156 N.E.2d 333, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 508, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 966

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 6, 1958

DocketNo. 5865

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 N.E.2d 333 (Bowman v. Alvis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowman v. Alvis, 156 N.E.2d 333, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 508, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 966 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the respondent seeking an order dismissing the petition for the reason that it is a frivolous pleading and without merit. The record reveals that the action is one in habeas corpus. The petition contains only the general statement that the petitioner is illegally confined in the Ohio State Penitentiary, and was filed only seven days after this court heard case No. 5798, which was the same type of action between the same parties. The petition contains no allegation of any changed facts or conditions since the previous hearing and it would therefore appear that the motion is well taken. We recognize that the principle of “res judicata” has no application to habeas corpus actions, but the assumption prevails that all legal issues pertaining to the petitioner’s confinement at the time of the hearing on December 2, 1957, were passed upon at that time. A further hearing based upon the same facts would serve no useful purpose; hence, the motion will be sustained and the petition is dismissed at petitioner’s costs.

PETREE, PJ, BRYANT and MILLER, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the respondent seeking an order dismissing the petition for the reason that it is a frivolous pleading and without merit. The record reveals that the action is one in habeas corpus. The petition contains only the general statement that the petitioner is illegally confined in the Ohio State Penitentiary, and was filed only seven days after this court heard case No. 5798, which was the same type of action between the same parties. The petition contains no allegation of any changed facts or conditions since the previous hearing and it would therefore appear that the motion is well taken. We recognize that the principle of “res judicata” has no application to habeas corpus actions, but the assumption prevails that all legal issues pertaining to the petitioner’s confinement at the time of the hearing on December 2, 1957, were passed upon at that time. A further hearing based upon the same facts would serve no useful purpose; hence, the motion will be sustained and the petition is dismissed at petitioner’s costs.

PETREE, PJ, BRYANT and MILLER, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E.2d 333, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 508, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-alvis-ohioctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack