Legal Opinion
State v. Baker
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided March 16, 2009No. A-17 September Term 2008PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Messano’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 400 N.J.Super. 28, 945 A.2d 723 (App.Div.2008). We add only the following.
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), codified in New Jersey at N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15, “creates uniform procedures for lodging and executing a detainer, i.e., a legal order that requires a State in which an individual is currently imprisoned to hold that individual when he has finished serving his sentence so that he may be tried by a different State for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Carchman v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Alabama v. BozemanSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Daidone v. Buterick BulkheadingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
- State v. BakerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2008
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. FriedmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- State v. Hai Kim NguyenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2011
- State v. DickersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. GlaspieNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2013
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BLAKE G. TANNEN (16-06-0718, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.