State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2024Patterson v. D'Apolito Ohio Ct. App.
- 2023State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022Cronin v. Governor of Ohio Ohio Ct. App.
- 2021Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion) Ohio
- 2020Maas v. Maas Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020Kennedy v. Dottore Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020Krohn v. Ostafi Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020Tuttle v. Collins Ohio Ct. App.
- 2019Logossou v. Advancepierre Foods, Inc. Ohio Ct. App.
Cites 5 cases
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co.
- Schulman v. City of Cleveland
- Mack v. McCune
- Robinson v. Benson
- Taylor v. United States Parole Commission
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State, ex rel. Hickman, Appellant, v. Capots, Chairman, et al., Appellees.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- William J. Hickman, pro se.
- Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Donald G. Keyser, for appellees.
Unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not considered admitted, Schulman v. Cleveland (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 196,198, 59 O.O. 2d 196,197, 283 N.E. 2d 175,176, and are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 193, 532 N.E. 2d 753, 756. The cases cited by appellant, Mack v. McCune (C.A. 10, 1977), 551 F. 2d 251, and Robinson v. Benson (C.A. 10, 1978), 570 F. 2d 920, both indicate that the conclusion appellant pleaded below is an exception to the general rule that parole may be revoked even though criminal charges based on the same facts are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted, or a conviction is overturned. See Taylor v. United States Parole Comm. (C.A. 6,1984), 734 F. 2d 1152, 1155. This suggests the need to plead specific facts showing how or why the parolee comes within the exception. Id. at 1156; see, also, Mitchell, supra. Appellant has not done so here.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.