Florida ex rel. Buster v. Purdy
219 So. 2d 43
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 11, 1969·No. No. 68-605·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
The question of insanity in a habeas corpus proceeding is to be determined by the demanding State, not by the asylum State. See: Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274; Brewer v. Turner, 165 Kan. 330, 194 P.2d 507; State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, 12 N.E.2d 144, 114 A.L.R. 686; 31 Am.Jur.2d, Extradition, §§ 15, 51; Anno. 114 A.L.R. 693.
Therefore, the order here under review will not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Florida ex rel. Buster v. Purdy, 219 So. 2d 43 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).
219 So. 2d 43 (Florida ex rel. Buster v. Purdy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ramirez v. Superior Court of Imperial Cnty.
223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 536 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2017)
In Re Personal Restraint of Jian Liu
208 P.3d 1207 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2009)
State v. Patton
176 P.3d 151 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2008)
State ex rel. Reed v. Frawley
59 S.W.3d 496 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2001)
Pruett v. Barry
696 P.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)