Bloss v. Rogers

Decided December 9, 1992

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1992-12-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[C]ommitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04 (D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner's application.”

quoted by 12 later decisions, including Paige v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (3-7-2007), Alexander v. Eberlin, 06 Be 38 (9-17-2007)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 203 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Watkins v. Collins (2006), Boyd v. Money (1998)

203 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Appellant claims it is unconstitutional to revoke a mentally ill person’s parole for violations caused by his mental illness. The court of appeals reached the correct conclusion when it dismissed appellant’s complaint *146for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner’s application. In re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Wells (Jan. 27, 1984), Lucas App. No. L-84-015, unreported, 1984 WL 4214.

¶2The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.