Lopez-Smith v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 1322 · 1997
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Kulvir Singh Barapind v. Janet Reno, Attorney General (2000), Ramiro Cornejo-Barreto v. Wh Seifert (2000)
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3186 · 18 U.S.C. § 3196 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246
Relies on United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez · Cooper v. Oklahoma · Charlton v. Kelly · Charles Neely v. William Henkel · Gallina v. Fraser
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xtradition is a matter of foreign policy entirely within the discretion of the executive branch, except to the extent that the statute interposes a judicial function.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Knotek · Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry, Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry“refrain from examining the penal systems of requesting nations, leaving to the Secretary of State determinations of whether the defendant is likely to be treated humanely.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry, Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry · Blaxland“[t]he Secretary of State, exercising executive discretion through delegation of this authority by the President, may refuse to extradite a relator despite a judicial determination that extradition would be compatible with the terms of the applicable treaty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry, Christopher P. Blaxland Marcella Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Securities and Investments Commission Paul R. Shaw Dennis T. Barry · Blaxland
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.