In re Piazza

218 N.E.2d 459, 7 Ohio St. 2d 102, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 84, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 323
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 6, 1966
DocketNos. 40238 and 40239
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 218 N.E.2d 459 (In re Piazza) 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 Piazza, 218 N.E.2d 459, 7 Ohio St. 2d 102, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 84, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 323 (Ohio 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 2501.02, Revised Code, provides in part:

<(# * * ^ addition to the original jurisdiction [of the Court of Appeals] conferred by Section 6 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution, the court shall have jurisdiction:

[103]*103“Upon an appeal upon questions of law to review, affirm, modify, set aside or reverse judgments or final orders of courts of record inferior to the Court of Appeals within the district, including the finding, order or judgment of a Juvenile Court that a child is delinquent, neglected or dependent, for prejudicial error committed by such lower court * * *.”

Section 2153.17, Revised Code, provides:

“The sections of the Revised Code regulating the manner and grounds of appeal from any judgment, order, or decree rendered by the Court of Common Pleas in the exercise of juvenile jurisdiction shall apply to the Juvenile Court.”

Habeas corpus is not applicable to the present situation. Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and as with every extraordinary remedy is not available as a means of relief where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In re Burson, 152 Ohio St. 375. Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal nor may it be resorted to where an adequate statutory remedy for review of the questions presented exists.

Petitioners have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Therefore, the motions to dismiss are sustained.

Motions sustained.

Taut, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neilh, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

B.R.K. v. Goldberg
2022 Ohio 1243 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Bevins v. Richard
40 N.E.3d 1108 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
State ex rel. Hassan v. Bova
2013 Ohio 4200 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Jordan v. Johnson
2013 Ohio 3679 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State ex rel. E.S.B. v. B.E.B.
2011 Ohio 2797 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Kempf v. State
910 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
State v. Lober, 22021 (7-25-2008)
2008 Ohio 3715 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
In Matter of C.C., 07ap-993 (6-10-2008)
2008 Ohio 2803 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Tisdale v. Eberlin, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2007)
2007 Ohio 1409 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Coleman v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2007)
2007 Ohio 357 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Ganim v. Ganim, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2006)
2006 Ohio 2874 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Smith v. Bradshaw, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2005)
2005 Ohio 5403 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Keller, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004)
2004 Ohio 3998 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
Daniel v. State
786 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
Dowling v. Government of the Virgin Islands
44 V.I. 256 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2002)
In re Coleman
2002 Ohio 1804 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 N.E.2d 459, 7 Ohio St. 2d 102, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 84, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-piazza-ohio-1966.