TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Piazza

In re Piazza, a Minor. In re Grodek, a Minor

In re Piazza, 218 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 6, 1966
Docket
Nos. 40238 and 40239
Judges
Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neilh, Schneider, Taut, Zimmerman
Citations
218 N.E.2d 4597 Ohio St. 2d 10236 Ohio Op. 2d 841966 Ohio LEXIS 323

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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 “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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 33 cases

View all citing references →
1966: 11976: 11977: 11979: 11984: 31985: 11986: 11991: 11994: 11999: 32002: 32003: 32004: 12005: 12006: 12007: 22008: 22009: 12011: 12013: 22015: 12022: 119662026peak 1984 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Hassink v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (12-21-1999)No. 77400. (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 21, 1999)
  2. Cornell v. Schotten1994 Ohio 74, 633 N.E.2d 1111
  3. State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate705 N.E.2d 353 (Ohio 1999)
  4. Daniel v. State786 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio 2003)
  5. Wagner ex rel. Luchene v. Wagner465 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio 1984)
  6. In re Coleman2002 Ohio 1804, 767 N.E.2d 677

Most recent

  1. B.R.K. v. Goldberg2022 Ohio 1243
  2. Bevins v. Richard40 N.E.3d 1108 (Ohio 2015)
  3. State ex rel. Hassan v. Bova2013 Ohio 4200
  4. Jordan v. Johnson2013 Ohio 3679
  5. State ex rel. E.S.B. v. B.E.B.2011 Ohio 2797
  6. Kempf v. State910 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Burson, 89 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio 1949) 45

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list