Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ex Parte Kaufman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1949No. File No. 9044Published

1Dissent

ROBERTS, J. (dissenting).

SDC 34.1707 provides that “If the Governor shall decide that the demand should be complied with, he shall sign a warrant of arrest * * *; and the warrant must substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issue.” It would appear that this section intends a recital in substance of jurisdictional facts referred to in SDC 34.1703, which reads as follows: “No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by an information…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Wells v. HanleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  2. State ex rel. Nisbett v. TooleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  3. Ex Parte CuppCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1935
  4. In re Extradition of SandersOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API