In re Broom
This text of 914 N.E.2d 409 (In re Broom) 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.
Opinion
In Habeas Corpus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,
It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the writ is allowed. Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered. See Reed v. Kinkela (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903; Hernandez v. Kelly, 107 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2005-Ohio-6400, 838 N.E.2d 670.
It is further ordered that respondent shall file a return of writ within 21 days of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within ten days after the return is filed. Petitioner’s physical presence before the court is not required.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
914 N.E.2d 409, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-broom-ohio-2009.