Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Granquist, 135 N.W.2d 447.

14 citing documents.

Perez v. Sheriff of Watonwan County 529 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Perez v. Sheriff of Watonwan County 529 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
530, 535 , 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); State v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 209 , -49 (1965).
State ex rel. Kirkendoll v. Zacharias 410 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although the rendition warrant may be challenged as well as the requesting documents, Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207 , Kirkendoll does not question that the rendition warrant is in proper form.
State Ex Rel. Walker v. Ramsey County District Court 368 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 208 , ).
Johnson v. Sheriff of Pine County 343 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207
State ex rel. Erickson v. Felt 327 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1982
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207 , Dietz v. Leach, 607 P.2d 993 (Colo.1980).
State v. Drager 264 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1978
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207 , this court set forth four grounds upon which extradition could be challenged.
State v. Bailey 262 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1977
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 209 , we set out four grounds on which extradition could be challenged: (a) That the demand for extradition and warrant issued in response to it are not in proper form; (b) that the criminal charge pending in the demanding state is inadequate to support extradition; (c) that he is not the
State Ex Rel. DeGidio v. Talbot 250 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1977
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207
State Ex Rel. Wagner v. Hedman 195 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1972
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 208 , we set forth the requirements of extradition as follows: “(a) Are the demand for extradition and the warrant issued in response to it in proper form ?
State v. Limberg 175 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1970
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 208 , 135 N. W. (2d) 447, 448 , we stated that the four questions to consider in determining the validity of custody in the asylum state pending interstate extradition are: “(a) Are the demand for extradition and the warrant issued in response to it in proper form?
State ex rel. Keller v. LeVander 168 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1969
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207, 209 , 135 N. W. (2d) 447, 449 .
State v. Limberg 142 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1966
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207 , 135 N. W. (2d) 447 , we said that four requisites to valid extradition are the following: (1) The demand for extradition and the warrant issued in response to it are in proper form.
State ex rel. LaRose v. Granquist 140 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1966
Gegenfurtner v. Granquist, 271 Minn. 207 , 135 N. W. (2d) 447 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by