Harrod v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2001) ( 2001 )


Menu:
  • I concur in the judgment, but would point out that, as the Ohio Supreme Court has held, "habeas corpus is unavailable to complain about parole conditions that allegedly restrict a petitioner's liberty" and that "depending on the circumstances, either declaratory judgment or mandamus is the appropriate and adequate legal remedy."9 Here, the proper remedy would seem to be declaratory judgment.

    9 State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1988), 84 Ohio St.3d 165,702 N.E.2d 423, citing Hattie v. Anderson (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 232,234, 626 N.E.2d 67, 70; see, also, Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977),50 Ohio St.2d 351, 354, 364 N.E.2d 286, 288.

Document Info

Docket Number: NO. C-000791.

Judges: <bold>Hildebrandt, Presiding Judge</bold>.

Filed Date: 5/11/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021