In re Broom

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Broom

914 N.E.2d 409, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1413

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 6, 2009·No. 2009-1686·Published

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

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.

In re Broom, 914 N.E.2d 409, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1413 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

914 N.E.2d 409 (In re Broom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related