Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Tenner

California Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1942No. Crim. 4406Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent. While the policy embodied in the Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision (Stats. 1937, p. 469) may be desirable in facilitating the transference from one state to another of violators of parole, I do not believe the legislation can stand in the face of United States Constitution, article IV, section 2, clause 2, and the Congressional Act, 18 U. S. C. A. 662, providing for extradition. It has been uniformly held that the United States Constitution and the act of Congress are paramount in this field and no state statute inconsistent therewith may stand. (McCline v. Meyering,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. ParrishSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  2. Ex parte MorganDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1883
  3. Kurtz v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
  4. State of Fla. Ex Rel. Stringer v. QuiggSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
  5. State Ex Rel. Brown v. GroschTennessee Supreme Court · 1941

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

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

Powered by the Exa API