Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1998No. 97-1270PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Finfrock asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus. Finfrock contends, among *640other things, that his parole revocation hearing was void because the APA did not comply with the minimum due process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.

As we recently noted, however, in affirming an appeal in a similar case, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. McBroom v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  2. State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. O'Neal v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
  4. State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Milner v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2000

5 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