Legal Opinion

Betschart v. Spinden

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 28, 2001No. C990396CV; CA A106750PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent his extradition under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), ORS 133.743 et seq., for alleged probation violations in the state of Washington. He asserts that he is not a person “who has fled from justice” within the meaning of ORS 133.747 1 because he was located in Oregon at the time of his alleged probation violations. We conclude that the “fled from justice” requirement in ORS 133.747 is satisfied if the documents supporting extradition demonstrate that the person has been charged…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Michigan v. DoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Wynsma v. LeachSupreme Court of Colorado · 1975
  3. Carpenter v. JamersonOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. In Re HvalSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987
  5. In Re Application of SummersWashington Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Conant v. StroupCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. Zimmerman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API