Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1994No. 92-2057PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Per curiam

To obtain a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that he has a clear legal right to the relief requested, the respondent has a clear legal duty to grant it, and no adequate remedy at law exists to vindicate the claimed right. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 50-51, 451 N.E.2d 225, 226-227. The court of appeals found that respondent had a clear legal duty to “correct” Hattie’s scoresheet, a duty derived from the Due Process Clause.1

We cannot agree. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Olim v. WakinekonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Jago v. Van CurenSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Frederick Robert Paine v. Ben L. Baker, Supervisor of Records, and the North Carolina Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979

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

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. State v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Johnson v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Askew v. GoldhartOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997

56 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