The officer or person to whom a writ of habeas corpus is directed shall convey the person imprisoned or detained, and named in the writ, before the judge granting the writ, or, in case of his absence or disability, before some other judge of the same court, on the day specified in the writ. Said officer or person shall make due return of the writ, together with the day and the cause of the caption and detention of such person, according to its command.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Hammond v. Dallman, 590 N.E.2d 744 (Ohio 1992).
Hammond v. Dallman, 590 N.E.2d 744 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2ד2 Normally, the granting of the writ would cause us to order respondent to make a return pursuant to R.C. 2725.12 and 2725.14. 3 However, we treat respondent’s motion to dismiss as a return of the writ and remand petitioner to custody.”
In Re Gentry, 454 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “The effect of the granting of the writ is to require “[t]he officer or person to whom a writ of habeas corpus is directed * * * [to] convey the person imprisoned or detained, and named in the writ, before the judge granting the writ * * R.C. 2725.12. Therefore, the issuance of…”
Ruther v. Sweeney, 137 N.E.2d 292 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). “provides: “When the person brought before a judge under §2725.12 R. C., is confined or detained in a legal manner on a charge of having committed a crime or offense which is bailable, the judge may recommit him or let him to bail.”
Sargent v. Leis, 825 N.E.2d 178 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “Although the sheriffs return has apparently not been filed pursuant to R.C. 2725.12 and 2725.14, there is authority that the motion to dismiss may be treated as the return.”
Ballard v. Lazaroff, 790 N.E.2d 1219 (Ohio 2003). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12.”
Wilburn v. Alexander, 634 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio 1994). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, F.”
Evans v. McGuffey, 2025 Ohio 5205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “See R.C. 2725.12; Hartranft v. Mullowny, 247 U.”
In re Writ of Habeas Corpus for Johnson, 577 N.E.2d 62 (Ohio 1991). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, consolidated with case No.”
Patterson v. Baker, 578 N.E.2d 468 (Ohio 1991). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12. WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the court that the petitioner is no longer in the custody of David L.”
State ex rel. Ball v. Cleary, 579 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio 1991). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12.”
In re Manogg, 638 N.E.2d 583 (Ohio 1994). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12. Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.”
In re Kilbarger, 656 N.E.2d 947 (Ohio 1995). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that it is not necessary to convey 'the prisoner before the court as prescribed in R.C. 2725.12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that petitioner may file a brief in response to respondent’s return of the writ within twenty days after the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.