Hemphill v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We affirm the court of appeals’ decision for the reasons stated in its opinion.
In order for a writ of prohibition to lie, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to *386exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law, and (3) it will result in an injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. However, Hemphill seeks, in part, to compel action on the part of the Parole Board; he wants to be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Lipschutz v. Shoemaker, Director, Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Ferguson v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1989
3Cited by8 opinions
- Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Hattie v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Hattie v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.