Cluckey v. Rasmussen

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cluckey v. Rasmussen

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1001

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1932

DocketNo 153

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353 (Cluckey v. Rasmussen) 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

Cluckey v. Rasmussen, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT

We are satisfied that the plaintiff in error can not substitute a hearing upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a trial upon the merits of the offense charged in the affidavit. The questions thus sought to be raised must be made at the trial, and if adversely determined may then be questioned in proceedings in error instituted for that purpose.

Tari v State, 117 Oh St, 481;

Nicholas v Cleveland, 125 Oh St, 474;

Ohio Bar, Aug. 29, 1932, p. 474;

Lamia v Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, NE Rep., October 12, 1832, p. 331. (12 Abs 611).

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore affirmed.

LLOYD, RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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