Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Blake v. Shoemaker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1983No. 82-986PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Per curiam

The basis of appellant’s argument is that his right to parole consideration provided in R.C. 2967.03 automatically creates a liberty interest sufficient to establish a right to procedural due process. This contention was rejected in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (1979), 442 U.S. 1, with the exception of where the state statute itself creates an expectancy of release. The Nebraska statute before the court in Greenholtz required release by the parole authority unless any one of four conditions negating parole was found to exist. The court stated that the expectancy of release provided by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Lawrence Wagner v. John J. Gilligan, GovernorCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hattie v. GoldhardtOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Hattie v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. William Dwight Dotson v. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Rogerico Johnson v. Margarette GheeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. State v. EatonOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. State ex rel. Ferguson v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1989

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API