Costanzo v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Costanzo v. State

166 N.E. 201, 119 Ohio St. 649, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 649, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 240

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1928

Docket21375

StatusPublished

This text of 166 N.E. 201 (Costanzo v. State) 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

Costanzo v. State, 166 N.E. 201, 119 Ohio St. 649, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 649, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 240 (Ohio 1928).

Pincite

Opinions

The court being fully advised in the premises finds that the bonds heretofore required of the minors, Joe Costanzo, aged fifteen years, and Mary Costanzo, aged ten years, in the sum of $10,000 each, are excessive; and the Court further finds that any bond required of each of said minors, in excess of $500, would likewise be excessive.

It is therefore ordered that unless said minors Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo be permitted to *650 enter into recognizances with sufficient sureties, in a sum not to exceed $500 each, that they he discharged from custody.

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

The court being fully advised in the premises finds that the bonds heretofore required of the minors, Joe Costanzo, aged fifteen years, and Mary Costanzo, aged ten years, in the sum of $10,000 each, are excessive; and the Court further finds that any bond required of each of said minors, in excess of $500, would likewise be excessive.

It is therefore ordered that unless said minors Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo be permitted to *650 enter into recognizances with sufficient sureties, in a sum not to exceed $500 each, that they he discharged from custody.

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.E. 201, 119 Ohio St. 649, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 649, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costanzo-v-state-ohio-1928.