Brown v. Sharkey’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 1996
2 district · 19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte in the Matter of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. William Dennison Governor and Executive Authority of the State of Ohio · Sweeney v. Woodall · South Carolina v. Bailey · Fox v. People · Ross v. Hegstrom
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bailey v. Laurie · Baker v. Laurie“(1) When we sit to consider a petition for habeas corpus filed by one who is charged as being a fugitive from justice, the court is not sitting as an .appellate tribunal reviewing what transpired in the trial court: the hearing before us is de novo. (2) The issuance of a rendition warrant, regular on its face, by the Governor of Rhode Island is prima facie evidence that the named accused is the fugutive wanted, and it is sufficient to justify his arrest, detention, and delivery to the demanding state. (3) In order to rebut this prima facie evidence, the •accused must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1 that he was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense or that he is not the person named in the writ, and proof of one or the other entitles him to his release. (4) Interstate rendition proceedings are summary in nature, and the accused is not entitled to the full panoply of protection afforded a defendant in a criminal trial because the United States Constitution contemplates a prompt return of a fugitive to the state that demands his return. (5) Constitutional claims and defenses are to be raised by fugitives upon their return to the demanding state and not before.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. Laurie““It -is the constitutional duty of an asylum state to enforce the Constitution’s interstate rendition clause faithfully.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bailey v. Laurie
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.