State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Jackson asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of prohibition. For the following reasons, Jackson’s assertions lack merit.
Habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for persons claiming entitlement to release from prison. State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 689 N.E.2d 561, 563. Therefore, Jackson is not entitled to a writ of prohibition to achieve the same result. “ ‘A contrary holding would permit inmates seeking immediate release from prison to employ [prohibition or] mandamus to circumvent the statutory pleading…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Wilcox v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Dix v. McAllisterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Smith v. YostOhio Supreme Court · 1998
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brooks v. GaulOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Kirklin v. EnlowOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Brooks v. GaulOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Kirklin v. EnlowOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Jackson v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.