Capra v. Ballarby’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1984
18 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 Travis v. People · Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price · State v. Barnett · State v. McINTIRE · Buhler v. People
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining the sufficiency of an indictment, it has been held that in an interstate rendition proceeding, the asylum state has no authority to pass on the technical sufficiency of an indictment. It has also been held that a governor’s extradition warrant is prima facie evidence that all legal requirements have been complied with, and if the subject of extradition desires to attack the technical insufficiency of an indictment, he must do so in the demanding state. Com. ex rel. Raucci v. Price, 409 Pa. 90 , 185 A.2d 523 . “This court has stated that the provisions in the law regarding extradition should not be, ‘so narrowly interpreted, as to enable offenders against the laws of a state to find a permanent asylum in the territory of another state.’ Travis v. People, 135 Colo. 141 , 308 P.2d 997 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the laws of that state * * *.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beliajus v. Phillips
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.