Shields v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 1998 · most notably Merzbacher v. State (1997), Kruszewski v. Holz (1972)
26 state decisions
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 Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley · Roberts v. Reilly · Charlton v. Kelly · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘We believe ... [that the plaintiff] misapprehends the statutory plan. The purpose of these sections of the extradition law is to prevent unreasonably lengthy periods of confinement of fugitives pending consummation of extradition proceedings by the demanding State. (Cf. Loft v. Heyd (5th Cir.), 315 F.2d 350 ; Bolton v. Timmerman, 233 S.C. 429 , 105 S.E.2d 518 ). There is, however, no indication of any legislative intent to restrict the period within which the Governor of Illinois may issue his rendition warrant to the period within which the court which issues the fugitive warrant may commit the accused or require him to give bond.’ See also Shields v. State, 257 Md. 384 , 263 A.2d 565 ; State ex rel. Brown v. Hedman, 280 Minn. 69 , 157 N.W.2d 756 ; In re Bryant, 129 Vt. 302, 306 , 276 A.2d 628 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear that the cited sections of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act are to prevent an unreasonably lengthy period of confinement of fugitives pending consummation of extradition proceedings by the demanding state. It is clear that they are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus to enforce the provisions of these sections of the statute. It is even more clear, however, that there is no indication, either under the Constitution of the United States or of any legislative intent to restrict the period within which a sister state may issue a rendition warrant to apprehend a fugitive and to make him respond to criminal proceedings in the sister state. There is no merit to the appellant’s contention.””
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.