In every case in which a writ of habeas corpus has been allowed, the person to whom the writ is directed shall file a return in which he shall plainly and unequivocally state the following: (1) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint; (2) if he has the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, he shall set forth at large the authority and the true and whole cause of such imprisonment and restraint, with a copy of the writ, warrant, or other process, if any, upon which the party is detained; and (3) if he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred such custody or restraint to another, he shall state particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause and by what authority such transfer was made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2022 · leading case:
Maria T. v. Jeremy S., 300 Neb. 563 (Neb. 2018).
Maria T. v. Jeremy S., 300 Neb. 563 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 16 Section 29-2817 describes that before the hearing on the underlying merits, the person to whom the writ is directed shall file a "return," explaining whether he or she has the relator under his or her "custody or power, or under restraint" and the authority for such…”
Childs v. Frakes, 981 N.W.2d 598 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” 22 We have recognized that this procedure is “consistent with traditional common-law habeas corpus procedure.”
Niklaus v. Holloway, 13 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1944).
· cites it 2× “Section 29-2817, Comp. St. 1929, applicable here requires that the respondent in habeas corpus shall make a return and sets forth what shall be contained therein.”
Rhodes v. Houston, 108 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 1961).
· cites it 2× “A motion filed July 20, 1960, requested that the relator be discharged from custody for the reason that the return failed to set forth the authority for the imprisonment of the relator as required by section 29-2817, R. R. S. 1943. A motion filed February 15, 1961, alleged that…”
Bruno v. Reverend Floyd Flscher, 45 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 1950).
· cites it 4× “She charges that because it was not filed on December 1, she was entitled that day to a writ on making a prima facie case, and, Second, that the answer when filed did not comply with the provisions of section 29-2817, R.”
Robinson v. Discoe, 34 N.W.2d 887 (Neb. 1948).
· cites it 2× “See section 29-2817, R. S. 1943. We do not hereby determine that petitioner was not being lawfully held but only that, based on the allegations of his petition, he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus in order that a hearing might be had to determine that question.”
Maria T. v. Jeremy S., 300 Neb. 563 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Under § 29-2819, the “return” is treated differently depending upon whether the person detained is in custody under any warrant or commitment in pursuance of law or is instead restrained of liberty by any alleged private authority.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.