Ruble v. Sacks

Ohio Supreme Court

Ruble v. Sacks

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1961

DocketNo. 36926

StatusPublished

This text of 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296 (Ruble v. Sacks) 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

Ruble v. Sacks, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence to review the alleged errors and irregularities which are nonjurisdictional and 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, Radcliff and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by désignation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence to review the alleged errors and irregularities which are nonjurisdictional and 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, Radcliff and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by désignation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruble-v-sacks-ohio-1961.