Application for such a writ shall be made to the supreme or superior or family court,
or to any justice of those courts, by complaint in writing, signed by the party for
whose relief it is intended, or by some person in his or her behalf, setting forth:
(1) The person by whom and the place where the party is imprisoned or restrained, naming
the prisoner and the person detaining him or her if their names are known, and describing
them if they are not known.
(2) The cause or pretense of the imprisonment or restraint, according to the knowledge
and belief of the person applying. If the imprisonment or restraint is by virtue of
any warrant or other process a copy thereof shall be annexed or it shall be made to
appear that a copy thereof has been demanded and refused, or that for some sufficient
reason a demand of a copy could not be made. The facts set forth in the complaint
shall be verified by the oath of the person making the application or by that of some
other credible witness, which oath may be administered by the court or justice to
whom the application is made, or by any justice of the peace or notary public.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1964–1981 · leading case:
Charest v. Howard, 285 A.2d 381 (R.I. 1972).
Charest v. Howard, 285 A.2d 381 (R.I. 1972).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §10-9-3. When under that section the Superior Court has heard and denied a petition for the writ, the decision of the Superior Court justice is final and no appeal lies to this court.”
Lonardo v. Langlois, 205 A.2d 19 (R.I. 1964).
“1956, § 10-9-3, in several material respects. He argues specifically that the application was not accompanied by a copy of the mittimus, or, in lieu thereof, a statement in his application that either demand therefor was refused or for some reason could not be obtained.”
Granger v. Johnson, 367 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 1977).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §10-9-3, “* * * by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person in his behalf * * As construed by defendant, that enactment requires dismissal of the application in this case because it was signed neither by Doris Johnson, the party for…”
Grieco v. Langlois, 240 A.2d 595 (R.I. 1968).
“' General Laws 1956, §10-9-3, gives original jurisdiction in habeas proceedings both to this court and to the superior court, and although §10-9-22 bars an appeal from a superior court judgment in habeas corpus, it does not prohibit an application to this court based upon the…”
Baker v. Laurie, 375 A.2d 405 (R.I. 1977).
“General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §10-9-3; Lonardo v. Langlois, 98 R.I. 493 , 205 A.”
State v. Grieco, 430 A.2d 412 (R.I. 1981).
“General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-9-3. . General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-9-4 (1980 Cum.”
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.