N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 17
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 (2026)

When party remanded

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 17 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the duty of the court or judge forthwith to remand the party, if it appears that he is detained in custody, either -

(1) By virtue of process issued by any court or judge of the United States, in a case where such court or judge has exclusive jurisdiction.

(2) By virtue of the final judgment or decree of any competent court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or of any execution  issued upon such judgment or decree.

(3) For any contempt specially and plainly charged in the commitment by some court, officer or body having authority to commit for the contempt so charged.

(4) That the time during which such party may be legally detained has not expired. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 21; Code, s. 1646; Rev., s. 1848; C.S., s. 2236.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: State v. Leach, 742 S.E.2d 608 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Leach, 742 S.E.2d 608 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 . Thus, a trial judge to whom an application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is presented must initially determine, based upon an examination of the application and any attached materials, whether the application satisfies the formal…”
In the Matter of Harris, 84 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. 1954). “” See also G.S. 17-34 (2). It may be doubted that these sections are applicable to ex parte commitments by clerks of the Superior Court under the provisions of Article 3, Chapter 122, of the General Statutes.”
State v. Daw (N.C. 2024). · cites it 7× “]” N.C.G.S. § 17-34. In that case, “[i]t is the duty of the court or judge forthwith to remand the party” to the place of their confinement.”
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 (2019). Section 17-33 provides that discharge is proper in the following circumstances: (1) Where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has been exceeded, either as to matter, place, sum or person.”
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 (2019). Section 17-33 provides that discharge is proper in the following circumstances: (1) Where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has been exceeded, either as to matter, place, sum or person.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34(2) — 3 cases
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021). “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 (2019). Section 17-33 provides that discharge is proper in the following circumstances: (1) Where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has been exceeded, either as to matter, place, sum or person.”
State v. Daw (N.C. Ct. App. 2021). “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-34 (2019). Section 17-33 provides that discharge is proper in the following circumstances: (1) Where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has been exceeded, either as to matter, place, sum or person.”
State v. Daw (N.C. 2024). “]” N.C.G.S. § 17-34. In that case, “[i]t is the duty of the court or judge forthwith to remand the party” to the place of their confinement.”
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.