In re Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Smith

364 N.E.2d 17, 50 Ohio St. 2d 192, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 382, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 403

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1977

DocketNo. 77-244

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 364 N.E.2d 17 (In re Smith) 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 Smith, 364 N.E.2d 17, 50 Ohio St. 2d 192, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 382, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 403 (Ohio 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The courts of this state haye the power to summarily punish an individual for contempt. The alleged errors asserted by petitioner do not attack the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas to sentence him for contempt. The purpose of habeas corpus is to inquire into alleged unlawful restraints of liberty and it is not the proper remedy to inquire into non-jurisdictional errors or irregularities. See Baker v. Sacks (1961), 172 Ohio St. 340.

Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is not available as a means of relief where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In re Piazza (1966), 7 Ohio St. 2d 102.

Petitioner’s proper remedy is by way of appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, Celebbezze, W. Bbown, P. Bbown, Sweeney and Looheb, JJ., concur.

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