From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Kinkela

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 9, 1998
84 Ohio St. 3d 1427 (Ohio 1998)

Opinion

No. 98-2041.

December 9, 1998.


In Habeas Corpus.

Sua sponte, writ allowed. Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered. See 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.


Summaries of

Reed v. Kinkela

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 9, 1998
84 Ohio St. 3d 1427 (Ohio 1998)
Case details for

Reed v. Kinkela

Case Details

Full title:Reed v. Kinkela

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 9, 1998

Citations

84 Ohio St. 3d 1427 (Ohio 1998)
702 N.E.2d 903

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Louis v. Forshey

Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered. See Reed v. Kinkela, 84 Ohio St.3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d…

State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen

court is not required. Reed v. Kinkela, 84 Ohio St.3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903 (1998).…