State ex rel. Ubienski v. Shoemaker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The sole issue before this court is whether appellant is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling appellee to rescind their decision changing his parole eligibility date. Entitlement to a writ of mandamus requires that appellant show that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that appellee is under a clear legal duty to perform the act, and that he has no adequate legal remedy. Appellant is unable to demonstrate a clear legal right to retain his reformatory parole eligibility. Thus, he is not entitled to his requested writ of mandamus.
Appellant’s parole eligibility has been…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State ex rel. Blake v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1983
3Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998