Plummer v. Ohio

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 15, 1952.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-02-15

2 counsel of record

Relies on Darr v. Burford · United States Kennedy v. Tyler · Tinsley v. Anderson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2000

6 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1W. A. Kiley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

¶2C. Wm. O’Neill, Thomas R. Lloyd, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

¶3Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal was heard upon the transcript of record, and upon the argument of counsel and upon briefs on behalf of the respective parties;

¶6And it appearing that the appellant, Thomas Tecumseh Plummer, has not exhausted remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Ohio, 28 U.S.Code, § 2254; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, and it being well settled that a writ of habeas corpus can not be used as a substitute for an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the State court, Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 106, 18 S.Ct. 805, 43 L.Ed. 91; U. S. ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 19, 46 S.Ct. 1, 70 L.Ed. 138.

¶7It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and is affirmed. .