Morgan v. Horrall’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 404 · 1949
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 1997 · most notably United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy (1953), 53 Cal. 2d 772 - In Re Cooper (1960)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co. · Huddleston v. Dwyer · Young v. Ragen · Stonebreaker v. Smyth
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`If some rational balance is to be preserved in the matter of handling petitions for writs of habeas corpus in Federal District Courts it is proper that petitioners should be required to exhaust available remedies under the present liberal procedure which seems wholly adequate to meet a situation of the character here presented.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Fugitive from another state who was absent therefrom at time of commission of crime. — The governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in such other state in the manner provided in section 3 (§ 42-1903) with committing an act in this state, or in a third state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this act not otherwise inconsistent, shall apply to such cases, even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime, and has not fled therefrom.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Dalton“Extradition of person not present in demanding state at time of commission of crime. The governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the executive authority of another state, a person in this state charged in the other state in the manner provided in § 20 of this chapter with committing an act in this state, or a third state, ■ intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this chapter not otherwise inconsistent shall apply to those cases, even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled from that state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moser v. Zaborac
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.