133.763 Facts
documents must show.
A warrant of extradition must not be issued unless the documents presented by
the executive authority making the demand show that:
(1) Except in
cases arising under ORS 133.767, the accused, when demanded upon a charge of
crime, was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged
crime and thereafter fled from that state;
(2) The person
demanded is in this state; and
(3) They
constitute full compliance with the requirements of ORS 133.753. [Formerly
147.050]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1981–2001 · leading case:
Thomas v. Keeney, 771 P.2d 249 (Or. 1989).
Thomas v. Keeney, 771 P.2d 249 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Doran, 439 US 282, 289 , 99 S Ct 530 , 58 L Ed 2d 521 (1978); see also ORS 133.763. 5 ORS 133.763 requires the demanding state to show, inter alia, that the person accused “was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and thereafter fled…”
Betschart v. Spinden, 20 P.3d 202 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “3 ORS 133.763 requires that the documents supporting a demand for extradition under ORS 133.”
State ex rel. Eggleston v. Hatrak, 636 P.2d 1017 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “753 1 had not been met in the documents accompanying the governor’s warrant; (2) the statutory requirements regarding facts *977 necessary to be shown in the demand under ORS 133.763 2 had not been met; and (3) plaintiff had not been identified as the party wanted by Michigan.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.763(1): 1 case
Betschart v. Spinden, 20 P.3d 202 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“3 ORS 133.763 requires that the documents supporting a demand for extradition under ORS 133.”
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.