Legal Opinion

Hinz v. Perkins

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 2, 1951No. 4044PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, J.

The office of habeas corpus in interstate rendition is generally confined to: “(1) the correctness of the requisition papers, (2) the relator’s identity, (3) whether the relator is a fugitive, (4) whether 'a crime is substantially charged.’ ” Note, Habeas Corpus in Interstate Rendition, 47 Col. L. Rev. 470, 471. This petition raises no question as to the validity of the requisition papers or the plaintiff’s identity. Since the “requisition is accompanied by a duly authenticated indictment which substantially charges the commission of an offense against the laws of ... ” the Commonwealth of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Higley v. MillspawNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. People Ex Rel. Gottschalk v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  3. Commonwealth v. BoothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  4. In re Habeas Corpus Brought by KingSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1942

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Reeves v. CoxSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
  2. Gullick v. SampsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API