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
- McAninch v. CrumbleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- South Euclid Fraternal Order of Police v. D'AmicoOhio Supreme Court · 1987
3Cited by5 opinions
- Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Cortland United Methodist Church v. Knowles, 2006-T-0110 (6-29-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- Ohio Power Co. v. OgleOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- In Re Civil Commitment Proceedings Under R.C. Chapter 5122Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001