Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 Kan. 477 - McCullough v. Darr

McCullough v. Darr’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
July 2000
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2000

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

901976198019902000decided

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 United States v. Peltier · Massiah v. United States · Huggins v. Raines · Munsey v. Clough · Pierce v. Creecy

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

  1. “"The Constitution does not require, as an indispensable prerequisite to interstate extradition, that there should be a good indictment, or even an indictment of any kind. It requires nothing more than a charge of crime." (Syl. ¶ 2.) "Where an accused challenges extradition in a habeas corpus proceeding brought under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, the Governor's warrant issued in the extradition proceedings is presumed valid and regular in all respects, thus casting the burden of proof upon the petitioner to overcome the prima facie case made by the Governor's warrant." (Syl. ¶ 3.) "So long as the charge made against one whose extradition is sought legally constitutes a crime, technical defects in the extradition papers cannot prevent extradition." (Syl. ¶ 4.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““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 22-2703 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 majority
  3. “The Constitution does not require, as an indispensable prerequisite to interstate extradition, that there should be a good indictment, or even an indictment of any kind. It requires nothing more than a charge of crime.”
    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.