Legal Opinion

Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 2002No. Nos. 2001-1253, 2001-1266, 2001-1443, and 2001-1825PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

{¶ 1} The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) adopted new parole guidelines on March 1, 1998. According to the APA, the revised guidelines were intended to “promote a more consistent exercise of discretion, and enable fairer and more equitable decision-making” without removing the opportunity for consideration of parole eligibility on an individual case basis.

{¶ 2} The APA’s new guidelines set forth a “parole guidelines chart” to determine the range of time that a prisoner should serve before being released. When considering inmates for parole the APA relies on a combination of two factors:…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lipschutz v. Shoemaker, Director, Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Hemphill v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. State v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Michael v. GheeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  3. State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State v. WolfeOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002

45 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