Legal Opinion

Williams v. Morris

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1992No. 90-1273PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in part and reverse it in part.

I

Specificity of the Order

R.C. 2967.15 states in part:

“In the event the [adult parole] authority fails to make a determination of the case of a parolee alleged to be a violator of the conditions of his pardon or parole within a reasonable time such parolee shall be released from custody under the same terms and conditions of his original pardon or parole." (Emphasis added.)

Appellants first argue that they cannot be held in contempt because the order they were found to violate merely ordered…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McAninch v. CrumbleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. South Euclid Fraternal Order of Police v. D'AmicoOhio Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Cortland United Methodist Church v. Knowles, 2006-T-0110 (6-29-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Ohio Power Co. v. OgleOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. In Re Civil Commitment Proceedings Under R.C. Chapter 5122Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API