Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Kan. 525 - Greenbaum v. Darr

Greenbaum v. Darr’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
6
states following
November 1991
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1991

17 state decisions

80197619801990decided

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 · 53 Cal. 2d 772 - In Re Cooper · Cooper v. Pitchess · Ennist v. Baden · Powell v. Turner

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

  1. ““22-2702. Fugitives from justice; duty of governor. Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of the constitution of the United States controlling, and any and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, it is the duty of the governor of this state to have arrested and delivered up to the executive authority of any other state of the United States any person charged in that state with treason, felony, or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this state.” “22-2703. Form of demand. 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 K.S.A. 22-2706 and amendments thereto, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter the accused 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 .... The indictment, information affidavit 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, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.” “2”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A careful reading of 22-2706 demonstrates that in order to extradite a person not present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, the person must be charged ‘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 demanding state. By reference to 22-2703, it is clear that the governor’s demand must be accompanied by an indictment, information affidavit, or affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the better rule is to judge the substantiality of the `charge' for purposes of extradition by consideration of the indictments in conjunction with the supporting requisition documents.”
    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.