From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. v. Switzer

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 3, 1952
109 N.E.2d 8 (Ohio 1952)

Opinion

No. 33070

Decided December 3, 1952.

Habeas corpus — Petitioner discharged from custody pending appeal — Dismissal — Moot question.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery county.

On June 11, 1951, appellant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On the following day he was tried in a mayor's court, found guilty, sentenced to six months confinement and assessed a fine of $500 with costs, on which he was to receive a credit of three dollars per day for each day of confinement.

On December 13, 1951, appellant filed a petition in habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals, urging that the mayor was without jurisdiction in the case. That court, on April 16, 1952, entered judgment denying the relief sought. An appeal was taken to this court on April 26, 1952, appellant was released from custody on May 2, 1952, and the cause was heard in this court on November 12, 1952.

Mr. Harvey Crow, for appellant.

Mr. Herbert S. Beane, city attorney, and Mr. Cecil Edwards, for appellee.


It appearing that appellant has been discharged from custody, the questions presented are moot. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on authority of Miner v. Witt, City Clerk, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. v. Switzer

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 3, 1952
109 N.E.2d 8 (Ohio 1952)
Case details for

State ex Rel. v. Switzer

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. SHAW, APPELLANT v. SWITZER, SUPT., APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 3, 1952

Citations

109 N.E.2d 8 (Ohio 1952)
109 N.E.2d 8

Citing Cases

Sakacsi v. McGettrick Sheriff

The questions presented by this appeal are, therefore, now moot. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the…

McDonald v. Keiter

However, it was conceded by appellant's counsel during oral argument before this court that appellant…