Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 Kan. 128 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2021

22 state decisions

10019821990200020102020decided

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 Michigan v. Doran · Bassing v. Cady · 6 Kan. App. 2d 688 - State v. Puckett · State v. Oswald · State v. Puckett

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

  1. ““In speaking of the limitations on the scope of the inquiry in courts of the asylum state in extradition proceedings, the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 , 58 L. Ed. 2d 521 , 99 S. Ct. 530 (1978), said: ‘A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. Cf. Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 392 (1908). Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. These are historic facts readily verifiable.’ ” 232 Kan. at 133 . (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where a party procures a 25 court to proceed in a particular way and invites a particular ruling, he [or she] is precluded from assailing such proceeding and ruling on appellate review.”
    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.