Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1994No. 92-1231PublishedCited by 187 opinions

1Per curiam

Seikbert asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus since the APA ignored his plea agreement by failing to release him on parole after his minimum term of incarceration had expired. In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must establish a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent has a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Donaldson v. Alfred (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 327, 329, 612 N.E.2d 717, 719.

In reviewing a complaint upon a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Mabry v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Hickman v. CapotsOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by187 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Howard v. FerreriOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Fuqua v. AlexanderOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. SchroederOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State ex rel. Dehler v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 1995

182 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