State Ex Rel. Bursaw v. Omodt
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Koehler (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Blakey v. District Court, Second Judicial District (Mont. 1988)
- Hickey v. State (Iowa Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an extradition proceeding. In response to a petition by the Governor of the State of California, the Governor of this state issued a rendition warrant for the surrender of petitioner to California authorities for trial on felony charges alleging that he committed crimes of theft in California in 1981. This appeal is from the order of the district court denying habeas corpus. The issue posed by the appeal is whether it is proper for Minnesota as a responding state to terminate an extradition proceeding because the demanding state failed to comply with Minn.Stat. § 629.294 (1982), the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. 1 In two prior decisions we have held it is improper for Minnesota to terminate an extradition proceeding on such a ground. Gayles v. Hedman, 309 Minn. 289, 244 N.W.2d 154 (1976); State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Martinco, 288 Minn. 231, 179 N.W.2d 286 (1970). See also Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Annot., 98 A.L.R.3d 160, 201-02 (1980). Consistent with these prior decisions, we hold that if petitioner has a valid claim for dismissal of the California charges because of any failure on the part of California authorities to abide by the compact, it should be raised in the California courts.
Affirmed.
. While this appeal was pending petitioner filed a petition for release pending appeal. The district court was of the view that following the issuance of the rendition warrant a trial court in a responding or asylum state has no authority to release the petitioner on bail. See State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Moeller, 182 Minn. 369, 234 N.W. 649 (1931). The district court stated that if it had such authority, it would have released petitioner. We postponed consideration of the petition for release until the issue was properly briefed by both sides. Following the filing of the petitioner’s brief, the district court apparently changed its mind and ordered defendant released pending appeal. Accordingly, the issue is moot. For a discussion of the issues of bail after the issuance of a rendition warrant and bail pending appeal from the denial of habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding, see L. Abramson, Extradition in America: Of Uniform Acts and Governmental Discretion, 33 Baylor L.Rev. 793, 806-808, 835-836 (1981).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.