Legal Opinion

In re Complaint in Habeas Corpus of Rowe

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1981No. 80-857PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

We need not pause in this appeal for a threshold inquiry as to whether federal or state law is controlling with respect to the matter before us. It is definitively and conclusively settled that when interstate extradition is sought upon the basis that one has committed an offense in the demanding state and fled therefrom to an asylum state, federal law, both constitutional and statutory, insofar as it is applicable, is controlling. South Carolina v. Bailey (1933), 289 U. S. 412; Innes v. Tobin (1916), 240 U. S. 127; Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), 65 U. S. 66; Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), 41 U.…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Michigan v. DoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Roberts v. ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Commonwealth of Ky. v. DENNISON, GOVERNOR, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1861
  4. Strassheim v. DailySupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Prigg v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1842

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. PakulskiSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  2. State v. CherryOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. State v. PakulskiSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  4. Carpenter v. JamersonOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. David Whitney Chamberlain v. Richard F. CelesteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984

14 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