Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1998No. 98-38PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Adkins asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, however, we find Adkins’s contentions to be meritless.

First, Adkins was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel his release from prison on parole. Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 639, 640, 687 N.E.2d 761.

Second, the APA did not rely solely on hearsay evidence to determine that Adkins violated his…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Fain v. Summit County Adult Probation DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Stamper v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Kimbrough v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex re. Kimbrough v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State ex rel. Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1999

5 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