State ex rel. Pirman v. Money

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 1994-07-20

Cited by 192 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Per Curiam. Pirman claims that she is entitled to mandamus and/or habeas corpus, alleging that the Eleventh District Court of Appeals acted improperly in setting bond based upon an unauthorized “no contact” condition, and that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction in rescinding her bond based upon such unauthorized condition. The court of appeals has filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to sta…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.