In re Popinoch

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Popinoch

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 612

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 21, 1922·No. No. 17328·Published

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; for the reason that it clearly appears from the averments of the application for [613]*613a writ of habeas corpus itself that the conviction, commitment and restraint of the applicant were not only not in violation of bnt were in pursuance of due process of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough, Wanamaker, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; for the reason that it clearly appears from the averments of the application for [613]*613a writ of habeas corpus itself that the conviction, commitment and restraint of the applicant were not only not in violation of bnt were in pursuance of due process of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough, Wanamaker, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

In re Popinoch, 104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 612 (Ohio 1922).

Pincite

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 612 (In re Popinoch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.