Winkel v. Matthews
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is in custody under an extradition order. He contends he was held an unreasonably long time on a mere detainer before the requisition from Ohio, the demanding State, was received. The record does not clearly establish this contention. In any event the contention does not appear to have been made in the District Court, Certainly it was not made during the time when appellant was — allegedly—unreasonably held. We find no error affect-inS substantial rights, Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.