Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Board

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1997No. 96-2409PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Per curiam

Johnson asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus because appellees did not comply with the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, when they revoked his parole. Even if Johnson’s assertions are correct, he would not be entitled to reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment for the following reasons.

Johnson is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for release from prison and reinstatement on parole. Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Carter v. SchottenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. McBroom v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Sampson v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Day v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Dix v. McAllisterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Gilmore v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1999

22 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