Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

In re Extradition of Adams

Ohio Court of Appeals
579 N.E.2d 752 (1989)


Facts

Joanne S. Adams (petitioner) sought to move from California to Ohio with her son, Russell. At a subsequent custody hearing, full physical and legal custody of Russell was awarded to Joanne and Russell’s father, William Young, was given visitation for two weeks during the Christmas holiday and Easter weekend the following year. That year, William told Joanne that he wanted to have Russell with him during the Christmas holiday and purchased a round-trip ticket for him. Joanne, however, refused to allow Russell to go. Joanne was subsequently found in contempt by a California court and, at that hearing, custody of Russell was awarded to William. William sought to enforce the California court’s contempt order in Ohio. The Ohio court held that California had properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter and could not take jurisdiction. Joanne then appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals. In 1988, the appellate court held that the California order was not enforceable in Ohio because Joanne had not received proper notice of the hearing. Thereafter, Joanne relinquished custody of Russell to William. A municipal court in Santa Clara, California, then issued an arrest warrant for Joanne alleging she violated California Penal Code § 278.5(b). Joanne was arrested and detained pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Governor of Ohio alleging she was an “alleged fugitive from justice, who stands charged…in California with detention or concealment of a child in violation of a custody order.” Joanne filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the trial court. Joanne appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brogan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 237,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.