Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 Colo. 385 - Pippin v. Leach

Pippin v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 1985
most recently cited

40 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Ventresca · Giordenello v. United States · Oliver Lee Kirkland and Elizabeth Smith v. Paul H. Preston and Luke Moore · Hithe v. Nelson · People v. McFall

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

  1. ““No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless in writing alleging, except in cases arising under section 16-19-107, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he fled from the state, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon, or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation, or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If a preliminary hearing was held in the demanding state and probable cause was established, then the hearing would be equivalent to an indictment and would consequently relieve the courts of this state of the burden and necessity of assessing the requisition documents to determine whether probable cause is established. ... A preliminary hearing satisfies the probable cause requirement.” 534 P.2d at 1196 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[Pjrobable cause must be established by the extradition documents if extradition is to occur. .. . “When extradition is sought by the demanding state ... the accused stands charged with the commission of a crime and is, therefore, entitled to the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. .. . ‘There is no reason why the Fourth Amendment, which governs arrests, should not govern extradition arrests.’ ” (quoting Kirkland v. Preston, 385 F.2d 670 (1967)).”
    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.