Brewer v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"To this end, the courts have given the Constitution and statute a liberal construction in order to effectuate and expedite the administration of justice in the several states. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police , 245 U.S. 128 , 38 S.Ct. 41 , 62 L.Ed. 193 ; Appleyard v. Massachusetts , 203 U.S. 222 , 27 S.Ct. 122 , 51 L.Ed. 161 , 7 Ann.Cas. 1073; Lascelles v. Georgia , 148 U.S. 537 , 13 S.Ct. 687 , 37 L.Ed. 549 ; Roberts v. Reilly , 116 U.S. 80 , 94 , 6 S.Ct. 291 , 29 L.Ed. 544 ; Ex parte *Page 304 Reggel , 114 U.S. 642 , 650 , 5 S.Ct. 1148 , 29 L.Ed. 250 ; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Dennison , 24 How. 66, 104 , 16 L.Ed. 717 ; Ex parte Anthony , 198 Wn. 106 , 87 P.2d 302 ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Fedder · In Re the Habeas Corpus of Langley

2. ““Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. * * *””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Riccardi · Smith v. Idaho

3. ““The only prerequisites to extradition from one state to another are, that the person sought to be extradited is substantially charged with a crime against the lazos of the demanding state, and that he is a fugitive from justice. McNichols v. Pase, 207 U.S. 100, 108, 109 , 28 S.Ct. 58 , 52 L.Ed. 121 ; Appleyard v. State of Massachusetts, supra [ 203 U.S. 222 , 27 S.Ct. 122 , 51 L.Ed. 161 ]; Roberts v. Reilly, supra [ 116 U.S. 80, 94 , 6 S.Ct. 291 , 29 L.Ed. 544 ]. Admittedly, the extradition pape'rs are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute. Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel. Westbrook v. O’Neill, 378 Ill. 324 , 38 N.E.2d 174 . 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the Habeas Corpus of Langley