Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ubienski v. Shoemaker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1985No. 84-1304PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Blake v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API