Legal Opinion

Wemme v. Hurlburt

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

Parties and witnesses are exempt from arrest while going to, in attendance on, and returning from court. This exemption is not prescribed by statute, but is a part of the common law and is a power inherent in courts for the purpose of preventing delay, hindrance or interference with the orderly administration of justice in the courts: 5 C. J. 465, 467, §§ 141, 143; Mullen v. Sanborn, 79 Md, 364 (29 Atl. 522, 47 Am. St. Rep. 421, 25 L. R. A. 721 and extensive note).

In this jurisdiction habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to have one arrested under civil process discharged from such arrest,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Michoud v. GirodSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
  3. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. FitchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  5. McDonough v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hansen v. Oregon Humane SocietyOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Pan-American World Airways, Inc. v. O'HearneDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1963
  3. Venator v. QuierOregon Supreme Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API