In Re Fedder’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 64 Cal. 2d 357 - In Re Patterson (1966), 196 Cal. App. 2d 230 - People v. Massey (1961)
32 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 3182 · 18 U.S.C. § 662
Relies on Roberts v. Reilly · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran · Holman Drew v. Harry Kendall Thaw
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This case was decided in 1917, and was cited in In re Marzec, 25 Cal.2d 794 , 154 P.2d 873 , and in In re McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 , and distinguished in both cases. The case is clearly contrary to the weight of authority and has been criticized in-Ex parte Martin, 142 Kan. 907 , 52 P.2d 1196 ; State ex rel. Shapiro v. Wall, 187 Minn. 246 , 244 N.W. 811 , 85 A.L.R. 114 ; People ex rel. Hutchings v. Mallen, 126 Misc. 591 , 214 N. Y.S. 211, reversed 218 App.Div. 461 , 218 N.Y.S. 432 , affirmed 245 N.Y. 521 , 157 N.E. 842 ; Ex parte Anthony, 198 Wash. 106 , 87 P.2d 302 ; also in Moulthrope v. Matus, 139 Conn. 272 , 93 A.2d 149 , and in United States ex rel. Moulthrope v. Matus, 2 Cir., 218 F.2d 466 , at page 468, the court said in reference to the Whittington case, it ‘seems not to have been generally followed.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the constitution of the United States controlling, and any and all acts of Congress enacted in pursuance thereof, it is the duty of the governor of this state to have arrested and delivered up to the executive authority of another state a person charged in that state with treason, felony, or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this state.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State“It is enough, if after committing a crime in one jurisdiction, the perpetrator departs and is later found in another. ... [E]ven if the prisoner was forcibly removed from the state by federal authorities he is still a fugitive from justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.