Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 F.2d 721 - Craig v. Hunter

Craig v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

167 F.2d 721 · 1948

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
June 1968
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1968 · most notably Strand v. Schmittroth (1957), Jenkins v. Madigan (1954)

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

160194819501960decided

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 Walker v. Johnston · Quirin Haupt Kerling Burger Heinck Thiel Neubauer United States Quirin v. Cox Usa 6 · Curtis v. Rives · Rawls v. United States · Goodman v. Kunkle

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

  1. ““Only the offended sovereign could raise the question by asserting its prior rights to the possession of the defendant in an appropriate proceeding. “ * * * The fact, however, still remains that if anyone’s rights to the possession of appellant were infringed, it was the right claimed by Washington. The conflict between it and the United States, if any, would arise under the rule of comity and it alone could complain. “It is pointed out that Washington, by filing its detainer with the Federal Authorities, has evidenced its protest to the interference with its prior jurisdiction. We are rather of the view that it is more reasonable to conclude that such detainer evidences acquiescence. The effect of the detainer is to say that Washington wants appellant returned to it when he has completed his term in the Federal Penitentiary. But even though the detainer be construed as a protest, it gives appellant no standing in this case as it is for Washington alone to pursue its protest if its action is to be considered as such.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.