Whitaker v. Maxwell
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
It is petitioner’s primary contention that Ohio has lost jurisdiction to further incarcerate him. He bases this claim on the fact that, when he was under arrest as a parole violator in 1956 in Missouri and Ohio released him to the federal authorities for prosecution, Ohio thereby relinquished its jurisdiction over him and waived the right to further imprison him. He urges further that such jurisdiction was lost the second time when Ohio failed to promptly reclaim him on his release from the Kentucky State Reformatory in 1964. He alleges that he was available for return at that time, and that…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Charles Helm v. Arnold R. Jago, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- State ex rel. Gillen v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Moon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Helm v. JagoOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- State ex rel. Gillen v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.