On the 19th day of May, 1971, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied habeas corpus relief to Michael Edsall, a fourteen year old boy who had been banished from Lake County, Ohio. In denying habeas corpus relief to Mike Edsall, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction over both the person of Mike Edsall and the subject matter, and that an appeal from the decision would have been the appropriate means by which the order of the Juvenile Court could be reviewed. But in so doing, the Supreme Court avoided dealing with the substantive issue of whether banishment was a valid order of a court
IN ADDRESSING ITSELF to the constitutionality of Section 3316.66 of the Ohio Revised Code,\u27 the U...
Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been ci...
Ohio has recently adopted legislation intended to provide a prisoner with a means of testing, in the...
ANY DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS of juvenile law necessarily requires that at least a brief inquir...
This article will focus on the constitutional defects of juvenile court adjudications under Ohio juv...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a public school student threatened with suspens...
On June 20, 1966, the United States Supreme Court noted that it had probable jurisdiction in the cas...
This comment will explore the extent to which the exclusion of hearsay evidence in a delinquency pro...
Sheppard exhausted his available state remedies as required by Title 28, USC, Section 2254. On May 3...
This article presents first an overview of the national legal environment and actual executions in A...
Respondent, a convict, was apprehended in Ohio after escaping from an Alabama prison. He attempted t...
The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in...
During the last decade and a half, there has been significant recognition of the legal rights of chi...
After a hearing before a juvenile court judge, appellant DeBacker was found to be a delinquent chil...
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the State\u27s Motion to Dismiss should have be...
IN ADDRESSING ITSELF to the constitutionality of Section 3316.66 of the Ohio Revised Code,\u27 the U...
Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been ci...
Ohio has recently adopted legislation intended to provide a prisoner with a means of testing, in the...
ANY DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS of juvenile law necessarily requires that at least a brief inquir...
This article will focus on the constitutional defects of juvenile court adjudications under Ohio juv...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a public school student threatened with suspens...
On June 20, 1966, the United States Supreme Court noted that it had probable jurisdiction in the cas...
This comment will explore the extent to which the exclusion of hearsay evidence in a delinquency pro...
Sheppard exhausted his available state remedies as required by Title 28, USC, Section 2254. On May 3...
This article presents first an overview of the national legal environment and actual executions in A...
Respondent, a convict, was apprehended in Ohio after escaping from an Alabama prison. He attempted t...
The trial court properly found that there is a distinction between a frisk and a search, and that in...
During the last decade and a half, there has been significant recognition of the legal rights of chi...
After a hearing before a juvenile court judge, appellant DeBacker was found to be a delinquent chil...
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the State\u27s Motion to Dismiss should have be...
IN ADDRESSING ITSELF to the constitutionality of Section 3316.66 of the Ohio Revised Code,\u27 the U...
Inadequate financial resources and overcrowded juvenile placement facilities have frequently been ci...
Ohio has recently adopted legislation intended to provide a prisoner with a means of testing, in the...