Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1997No. 96-1913PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Newell contends that the court of appeals erred in entering summary judgment against him on his amended claim for a writ of mandamus. *270In his amended complaint and motion for summary judgment, Newell asserted that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel either his transfer to a reformatory or, if no longer possible, to void his sentence and release him from prison.

However, as the court of appeals correctly determined, the distinctions between penal institutions and reformatory institutions have been eliminated. See R.C. 5120.03(B) (“The director of rehabilitation and correction, by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Houk v. RossOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State ex rel. Hattie v. GoldhardtOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Hospital v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State ex rel. Lowery v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State ex rel. Brown v. Board of County Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distributing Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. Heddleston v. MackOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Newell v. GaulOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  4. State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Newell v. GaulOhio Court of Appeals · 2012

4 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