Brust v. Ohio Parole Bd.
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 4104
Syllabus
The policy of absolute confidentiality employed by defendants-appellees, the Ohio Parole Board and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, concerning substantively inaccurate written statements made by victims, their representatives, or their families is not mandated under Ohio law and constitutes both a denial of plaintiff-appellants' right to meaningful consideration for parole under State ex rel. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 141 Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270 and a violation of fundamental fairness principles at the heart of procedural due process. As a result, the trial court erred in granting defendants-appellees' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs-appellants' action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Judgment reversed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting challenge to preamble as unreviewable and unripe because it was “uncertain” how the agency would “use or rely on or interpret what it said in the preamble”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Leland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.