In re Huffines

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Huffines

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 9

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1960

DocketNo. 36305

StatusPublished

This text of 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 9 (In re Huffines) 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

In re Huffines, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 9 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A legal charge was stated in the indictment. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the other alleged errors or irregularities of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

A legal charge was stated in the indictment. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction to review the other alleged errors or irregularities of which he here complains and cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-huffines-ohio-1960.