Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1991No. 90-1178PublishedCited by 94 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The state contends that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed for three reasons. First, the state argues that plaintiff cannot maintain a common-law false imprisonment claim because the initial taking of his liberty was lawful pursuant to the trial court’s six-month sentence. Second, the state contends that plaintiff’s true claim is one for “parole revocation improprieties” and therefore cannot be maintained because no such cause of action exists between private parties, as is required for the state to be liable in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.02(A)(1). Finally, the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Reynolds v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Feliciano v. KreigerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Coleman v. StobbsOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Johns v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by94 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pirman v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Logsdon v. HainsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  3. Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick SummersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. Foreman v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Corder v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

89 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