155 W. Va. 530 - State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably Maldonado (1973), 180 W. Va. 363 - State v. Moss (1988)
36 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 Sweeney v. Woodall · Marbles v. Creecy · State v. Granquist · Eugene Howard Woods v. Alwynn J. Cronvich, Sheriff · 145 W. Va. 354 - State Ex Rel. Sublett v. Adams
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In habeas corpus proceedings instituted to determine the validity of custody where petitioners are being held in connection with extradition proceedings, the asylum state is limited to considering whether the extradition papers are in proper form; whether there is a criminal charge pending in the demanding state; whether the petitioner was present in the demanding state at the time the criminal offense was committed; and whether the petitioner is the person named in the extradition papers.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the contention of the appellant that the Circuit Court of Marshall County erred in considering the question of whether the petitioners’ constitutional rights to a speedy trial in Virginia were violated at the habeas corpus hearings, because the question is not a proper subject in habeas corpus proceedings challenging the validity of extradition warrants. This contention is well taken, because it has been repeatedly held that the courts in an asylum state cannot determine constitutional questions with regard to crimes charged against fugitives in a demanding state. It is for the courts of the demanding state to determine such question in the first instance. . . . “The type, of constitutional rights involved is immaterial. It has been specifically held that where the petitioners in a habeas corpus proceeding in an asylum state where the petitioners are being held by virtue of extradition warrants from a demanding state contend that they should be released from custody because their constitutional rights to a speedy trial have been violated in the demanding state, it is not proper for the courts in the asylum state to consider the question. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘A person, after having been convicted of a crime committed within a state and not having served in full the sentence resulting therefrom, who when sought for to be subjected to the sentence of the court is found in another state, is a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the extradition clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.’ Point 1, syllabus, State ex rel. Sublett v. Adams, 145 W.Va. 354 [ 115 S.E.2d 158 (1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 933 , 81 S.Ct. 1652 , 6 L.Ed.2d 392 (1961)].””
2 later decisions 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.