Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 182 F.2d 677 - Johnson v. Matthews

Johnson v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis

182 F.2d 677 · 1950

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
September 1997
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 7 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1997 · most notably Sweeney v. Woodall (1953), In Re Riddle (1962)

59 federal appellate · 7 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 states

45019501960197019801990decided

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 Screws v. United States · Walker v. Johnston · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Ahrens v. Clark · Roberts v. Reilly

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

  1. ““The basic premise of Appellant’s position is that he could not get fair treatment in the courts of Georgia, either state or federal * * * “We are asked to assume that appellant would not be protected by the courts in Georgia. We not only decline to make the assumption but we repudiate the suggestion that we make it. We will not impugn either the capacity or the integrity of the state courts of Georgia or of any other state. And even if we were to assume, upon the basis of this fugitive’s allegations, that the state courts are impervious to his assertions, we would make no such assumption concerning federal courts having jurisdiction in that state. Those courts of the United States are as capable and faithful as are the courts of this or any other jurisdiction. If that Court of Appeals errs, certiorari to the Supreme Court will lie. “If we will not assume the non-availability of courts in Georgia, we are asked to permit petitioner to present evidence upon the non-availability and then to determine the question. There is an established procedure for the correction of error or dereliction on the part of every court in the country, and where constitutional rights are involved the Supreme Court of the United States stands watchman over every court, state or federal. It would be an act of unwarranted arrogance for us to ascribe to ourselves virtue superior to that of other courts and so to assert power to hear and determine the faithfulness to duty of a sister court occupying a pl”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 822 , eff. Sept. 1, 1948.)””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.””
    2 later decisions 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.