holding collateral consequences subsequent to involuntary confinement permitted petition be heard in that narrow context only
How later courts described this case
- holding collateral consequences subsequent to involuntary confinement permitted petition be heard in that narrow context only
- holding commitment issue not moot due to collateral consequences
- “The touchstone of our examination is that a waiver of this sort must be knowingly and intelligently made.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
concur ring. My concurrence in In re Popp (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 142 , was prompted by my concern over the lower court’s having proclaimed an unwarranted expansion of the issuance of the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus. I do not believe courts should begin issuing these writs, in otherwise moot cases, solely because a so-called “public interest” has been declared.
The case of In re Fisher (1974), 39 Ohio St. 2d 71 , did not present the issue of mootness or involve a discussion of collateral disability. See the concurring opinion in State v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 236, 238 .