Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 U.S. 511 - Bingham v. Bradley

Bingham v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis

241 U.S. 511 · 1916

Citation profile

198
cited by 198 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 28 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 198 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Fernandez v. Phillips (1925), Factor v. Laubenheimer (1933)

68 federal appellate · 28 district · 4 state decisions

350191619201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 John McNamara v. William Henkel · Leibel Pincusov Glucksman v. William Henkel · Rice v. Ames · Kelly v. Griffin

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

  1. “to obviate the necessity of confronting the accused with the witnesses against him; . . . (requiring) the demanding government to send its citizens to another country to institute legal proceedings, would defeat the whole object of the treaty.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Taking this provision of the treaty, and that of the Revised Statutes above recited, we are of opinion that the proceeding before the commissioner is not to be regained as in the nature of a final trial by which the prisoner could be convicted or acquitted of the crime charged against him, hut rather of the character of those preliminary examinations which take place every day in this country before an examining or committing magistrate for the purpose of determining whether a case is made out which will justify the holding of the accused, either by imprisonment or under bail, to ultimately answer to an indictment, or other proceeding, in which he shall be finally tried upon the charge made against him. The language of the treaty, which we have cited above, explicitly provides that ‘the commission of the crime shall be so established as that the laws of the country in which the fugitive or the person so accused shall be found would justify his or her apprehension and commitment for. trial if the crime had been there committed.’ This describes the proceedings in these preliminary examinations as accurately as language can well do it. Tho act of congress conferring jurisdiction upon the commissioner, or other examining officer, it may bo noted in this connection, says that if he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the treaty he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony, and issue his warrant for the commitment of ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “And since the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is clear, and the evidence abundantly sufficient to furnish reasonable ground for the belief that appellant has committed within the Dominion of Canada a crime that is an offense under the laws of the Dominion, as well as under those of Illinois . . . and is covered by the terms of the treaty, and that he is a fugitive from justice, a fair observance of the obligations of the treaty requires that he be surrendered.”
    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.