State ex Rel. Chase v. Calvird

6 Citing cases

  1. O'Neal v. State

    290 Neb. 943 (Neb. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    In O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 951, 863 N.W.2d 162, 169 (2015), we held that "failure to attach a copy of the relevant commitment order to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not prevent a court from exercising jurisdiction over that petition."

    See Tyler v. Warden, Nebraska State Prison, No. A–02–295, 2003 WL 21398153 (Neb.App. June 17, 2003) (not designated for permanent publication). Moreover, most states with statutory requirements similar to § 29–2801 do not treat compliance with such requirements as jurisdictional. See, Nguyen v. State, 282 Ga. 483, 651 S.E.2d 681 (2007), overruled on other grounds, Brown v. Crawford, 289 Ga. 722, 715 S.E.2d 132 (2011); State ex rel. v. Adult Parole, 80 Ohio St.3d 639, 687 N.E.2d 761 (1998); People ex rel. Negron v. Herold, 33 A.D.2d 1076, 307 N.Y.S.2d 710 (1970); State ex rel. Hansen v. Utecht, 230 Minn. 579, 40 N.W.2d 441 (1950); State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 24 S.W.2d 111 (1930); In the Matter of Beard, 4 Ark. 9 (1842); In re Spates, No. 14–14–00524–CV, 2014 WL 3051311 (Tex.App. July 3, 2014) (unpublished). But see Evans v. Dist. Ct., 194 Colo. 299, 572 P.2d 811 (1977).

  2. State ex Rel. Burtrum v. Smith

    357 Mo. 134 (Mo. 1947)   Cited 23 times
    In State ex rel. Burtrum v. Smith, 357 Mo. 134, 206 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. banc 1947) a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of a minor child was brought in circuit court by the child's father while the mother's appeal from a divorce decree was pending in the Kansas City Court of Appeals.

    When the writ is issued the petition has accomplished its purpose, and ordinarily thereafter the issues are based on the return to the writ, and the transverse thereof. State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 434-5, 24 S.W.2d 111, 114. In this instance the relators here, when they were respondents below in the habeas corpus case, did file a motion to dismiss alleging voluminous facts, which was equivalent to a return challenging the court's jurisdiction.

  3. State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Neaf

    346 Mo. 86 (Mo. 1940)   Cited 29 times

    " [See also: State ex rel. St. Louis v. Caulfield, 333 Mo. 270, 273, 62 94 S.W.2d 818; State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing, 336 Mo. 386, 389, 79 S.W.2d 255; House v. Clinton County Court, 67 Mo. 522, 523.] It is apparent, therefore, that this court cannot go to the application for the writ to search out facts which should be in the return. State ex rel. Products Co. v. Pearcy, supra, 325 Mo. 335, 344; State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 437, 24 S.W.2d 111, 115; State ex rel. School Dist. v. Williams, 70 Mo. App. 238, 242; State ex rel. Packing Co. v. Stephens, 146 Mo. 662, 686, 48 S.W. 929 (majority opinion holding that undenied allegation in application cannot be considered as establishing a fact not shown in the return). Evidence and exhibits sent up in response to the writ, even though incorporated in the return and referred to in the records, may not be considered, and will be disregarded, where same are not properly a part of the record of the tribunal to whom the writ was directed.

  4. State ex Rel. United Brick Tile Co. v. Wright

    95 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. 1936)   Cited 12 times
    In United Brick Tile, the Missouri Supreme Court considered what type of corporate structure and parent/subsidiary relationship would compel an examination of the subsidiaries' corporate books.

    The lower court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter and the judgment is supported by the petition. Since there is no error on the face of the record proper, the writ of certiorari should be quashed: State ex rel. v. Patterson, 229 Mo. 368; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 190 Mo. 588; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 207 Mo. 366; Hannibal Railroad v. State Board, 64 Mo. 308; House v. Clinton County Court, 67 Mo. 523; State ex rel. v. Williams, 70 Mo. App. 241; Stone v. New York, 25 Wend. 134; State ex rel. v. Dowlin, 50 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. Board, 108 Mo. 242; State ex rel. v. Cauthorn, 40 Mo. App. 96; State ex rel. v. Mayor, 57 Mo. App. 192; State ex rel. v. Edwards, 104 Mo. 125; State ex rel. v. Wells, 210 Mo. 621; State ex rel. v. Clark, 9 S.W.2d 638; School District v. Pace, 113 Mo. App. 140; State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 24 S.W.2d 111, 324 Mo. 429; State ex rel. v. Ossing, 79 S.W.2d 255; State ex rel. Shartel v. Skinker, 25 S.W.2d 472, 324 Mo. 955. (4) Since there is nothing here but the record proper, the sole questions that can be presented are, did the lower court have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, did the petition state a cause of action and does the petition support the judgment? Osborn v. Benbow, 38 Mo. App. 25; Oakes v. School District, 98 Mo. App. 163; Orchard v. Bank, 121 Mo. App. 338; Miller v. Falloon, 187 S.W. 839; Growney v. O'Donnell, 272 Mo. 167, 198 S.W. 863; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 470, 151 S.W. 235; Layne v. Miners Co., 180 Mo. App. 684, 163 S.W. 569; Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474; Roden v. Helm, 192 Mo. 71; Bruner v. Johnson, 228 S.W. 92; Hearst v. Trust Co., 5 S.W.2d 3.

  5. State of Missouri v. Swink

    241 Mo. App. 1048 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 31 times
    In State ex rel. White v. Swink, 241 Mo. App. 1048, 256 S.W.2d 825 (1953), the right of the grandparents to obtain issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the return of custody of their grandchild who prior thereto had been with them for several years, was questioned by the parents against whom the writ was issued.

    A respondent to whom a writ of habeas corpus is addressed can attack the petition if he desires by a motion to quash the writ. State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 24 S.W.2d 111, l.c. 114. The authorities hold that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must on its face show probable cause for the issuance of the writ and when the petition fails to show grounds for the release of the infant, the court will not and should not issue the writ.

  6. State ex Rel. v. Mo. Workmen's Comp. Comm

    234 Mo. App. 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 3 times

    (1) There are no facts before the court on which it can base a determination of the questions involved because the exhibits referred to in the return are not made a part of the record. State ex rel. Duraflor Products Co. v. Pearcy (Mo.), 29 S.W.2d 83, l.c. 87; State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird (Mo.), 24 S.W.2d 111, l.c. 115; State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing (Mo. en banc), 79 S.W.2d 255, l.c. 256. (2) Certiorari is not the proper remedy in the present case because: (a) The writ will not reach the question of insufficiency of the evidence.