49 OHIOST2D 211 - In re Klepper

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2022

11 state decisions

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.

Per Curiam.

¶1The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

¶2The petition states a cause of action alleging that petitioner has been committed to a private mental institution for a period not to exceed 90 days and is being deprived and restrained of her liberty without due process of law in violation of her constitutional rights.

¶3The Court of Appeals was in error in sustaining the motion to dismiss. Habeas corpus will lie to determine whether a person was afforded substantive and procedural due process in non-criminal involuntary civil commitment proceedings, undertaken pursuant to R. C. 5122.15, where habeas corpus relief is the only plain and adequate remedy available for the vindication of federal constitutional rights. In re Fisher (1974), 39 Ohio St. 2d 71, 75; Freeman v. Maxwell, Warden (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 4. See R. C. 5122.30.

¶4It is strongly argued that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that it is moot because the petitioner was discharged from the hospital. However, that fact* alone is no longer sufficient to moot a cause such as the one at bar. The issue concerning continuing collateral disability must still be determined. See McDuffie v. Berzzarins (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 23; State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 236; Burton v. Reshetylo (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 35. The efficacy of the syllabus in In re Popp (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 142, now appears doubtful.

¶5The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court.

¶6Judgment reversed.

Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.O’Neill, C. J., not participating.

¶7 Although all seem to be in agreement upon this question, our search of the record fails to disclose petitioner’s official discharge from confinement. Upon remand, care should be taken to complete the record in this regard.