Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Reed v. Kinkela

Reed v. Kinkela

702 N.E.2d 903, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3389
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1998
Docket98-2041
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 702 N.E.2d 903 (Reed v. Kinkela) 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
Reed v. Kinkela, 702 N.E.2d 903, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3389 (Ohio 1998).

Opinion

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, writ allowed. Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered. [1428]*1428See Workman v. Warden (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1479, 687 N.E.2d 474; Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 609, 653 N.E.2d 659, 661. Respondents are ordered to file a return of writ within thirty days of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within twenty days after the return. Petitioner’s physical presence before this court is not required. Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 382, 667 N.E.2d 1194, 1196.

Douglas, Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent and would dismiss this cause.

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

Related

State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen
2023 Ohio 1105 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2023)
Pruitt v. Cook
986 N.E.2d 28 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
In re Broom
914 N.E.2d 409 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Carrion v. Beightler
884 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Dunn v. Smith
883 N.E.2d 456 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Sidle v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
722 N.E.2d 526 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
702 N.E.2d 903, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 3389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-kinkela-ohio-1998.