State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots
Cases that cite this one
164 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C. v. VanLeeuwen (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Sacksteder v. Senney (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
- Zanders v. Anderson (Ohio 1996)
- Moore v. Naiman (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hazel (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Tuleta v. Med. Mut. of Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Flenoy v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1990)
- Patterson v. D'Apolito (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
- State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
- Cronin v. Governor of Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
- State ex rel. Yeager v. McCarty (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
- Krohn v. Ostafi (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs. (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Kennedy v. Dottore (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Tuttle v. Collins (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Maas v. Maas (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Logossou v. Advancepierre Foods, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
- Harper v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
- Armatas v. Haws (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
- State ex rel. Sands v. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2018)
- Kanter v. Cleveland Hts. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Corsaro & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Weston Hurd, L.L.P. (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.