Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hogan v. Ghee

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1999No. 98-2096PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

Hogan asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action and denying his motion for declaratory judgment. For the following reasons, Hogan’s assertions lack merit.

First, to the extent that Hogan claimed that he was entitled to be released from prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, was the proper action. State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61, 701 N.E.2d 994, 995.

Second, “ ‘[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right * * * to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.’ ” State ex rel.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. TompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Hattie v. GoldhardtOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Peeples v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Hattie v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Denton v. BedinghausOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State ex rel. Miller v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. Smith, Ct2007-0073 (6-30-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. State v. Rockwell, 2008-Ca-00009 (4-28-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State ex rel. Recker v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2000

10 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