The court or judge before whom the party is brought on a writ of habeas corpus shall, immediately after the return thereof, examine into the facts contained in such return, and into the cause of the confinement or restraint of such party, whether the same has been upon commitment for any criminal or supposed criminal matter or not; and if issue be taken upon the material facts in the return, or other facts are alleged to show that the imprisonment or detention is illegal, or that the party imprisoned is entitled to his discharge, the court or judge shall proceed, in a summary way, to hear the allegations and proofs on both sides, and to do what to justice appertains in delivering, bailing or remanding such party. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 19; Code, s. 1644; Rev., s. 1846; C.S., s. 2234.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case:
Chavez v. Carmichael, 822 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
Chavez v. Carmichael, 822 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 17-32 to determine the legality of [their] confinement.”
State v. Leach, 742 S.E.2d 608 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-32 . If the applicant takes issue with “the material facts in the return, or other facts are alleged to show that the imprisonment or detention is illegal, or that the party imprisoned is entitled to his discharge, the court or judge shall proceed, in a…”
In Re Burton, 126 S.E.2d 581 (N.C. 1962).
“G.S. 17-32; State v. Hare, 243 N.C. 262 , 90 S.”
State v. Daw (N.C. 2024).
· cites it 37× “” N.C.G.S. § 17-32 (2023). The statute also casts a wide net, embracing habeas petitioners committed “for any criminal or supposed criminal matter or not.”
In the Matter of Harris, 84 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. 1954).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 17-32 provides: “The court or judge before whom the party is brought on a writ of habeas corpus shall, immediately after the return thereof, examine into the facts contained in such return, and into the cause of the confinement or restraint of such party, whether the same…”
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-32 (2019) (emphasis added).”
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-32 (2019) (emphasis added).”
Chavez v. McFadden (N.C. 2020).
“§ 17-32. A party petitioning for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus shall be discharged “[i]f no legal cause is shown for such imprisonment or restraint, or for the continuance thereof.”
Revak v. Miller (E.D.N.C. 2020).
“§§ 17-32. Sheriff Miller, Colonel Worrell, Major Thomas, and Captain Lewis allegedly ignored Plaintiff's complaints about Captain Jeffries and failed to act to prevent the harassment.”
Chavez v. McFadden (N.C. 2020).
“§ 17-32. A party petitioning for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus shall be discharged “[i]f no legal cause is shown for such imprisonment or restraint, or for the continuance thereof.”
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.