Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Court of Claims

Decided April 13, 1999No. 97-048880Published

1Opinion of the Court

Kevin W. Popham, Magistrate.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant is liable for false imprisonment resulting from his parole revocation. Defendant denies any liability. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53, the court appointed the undersigned magistrate to hear the evidence regarding both liability and damages. Upon the close of plaintiffs case, the magistrate granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B).

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff was sentenced *94to a term of five…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Seikbert v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Bennett v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Feliciano v. KreigerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Rose v. HaskinsOhio Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API