Legal Opinion

Hattie v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1994No. 92-2130PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant’s first proposition of law asserts that habeas corpus and/or mandamus is available against the APA because it rescinded an order granting parole out of vindictiveness and in retaliation for his questioning the conditions of parole. R.C. 2967.03 vests discretion in the APA to “grant a parole to any prisoner, if in its judgment there is reasonable ground to believe that * * * such action would further the interests of justice and be consistent with the welfare and security of society.” However, R.C. 2967.03 creates no expectancy of parole or a constitutional liberty interest…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Jago v. Van CurenSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Seikbert v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Eby v. York-Division, Borg-WarnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State Ex Rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996

30 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