Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1998No. 97-2556PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

Sampson asserts that the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint. For the following reasons, however, the court of appeals properly dismissed Sampson’s complaint for a writ of mandamus.

First, Sampson had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief to review the claimed sentencing error. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383. Second, the fact that Sampson has already invoked some of these alternate remedies to raise his claim of sentencing error does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in mandamus. Where a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrathOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Massie v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Heddleston v. MackOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State ex rel. Jones v. O'ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Beaver v. KontehOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Childers v. WingardOhio Supreme Court · 1998

25 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