264 Pa. Super. 67 - Commonwealth v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1995
15 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 United States Ex Rel. Anthony Vitiello v. Walter J. Flood, Warden of the Nassau County Jail · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Edgar v. Davis · Luker v. Koch · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Knowles v. Lester · Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has often been repeated that extradition will be ordered if: (1) the subject of extradition is charged with a crime in the demanding state; (2) the subject of extradition is a fugitive from the demanding state; (3) the subject of extradition was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime; and (4) the requisition papers are in order. Commonwealth ex rel. Coades v. Gable, 437 Pa. 553 , 264 A.2d 716 (1970); Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Aytch, 254 Pa.Super. 28 , 385 A.2d 508 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Colcough v. Aytch, 227 Pa.Super. 527 , 323 A.2d 359 (1974). As a necessary pre-requisite to extradition, the Commonwealth must establish that the person being extradited is the person demanded. Commonwealth ex rel. Walker v. Hendrick, 434 Pa. 175 , 253 A.2d 95 (1969); Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Aytch, supra. As has been emphasized, in every extradition proceeding ‘the relator has an absolute right to require that his identity as the person named in the Extradition Requisition be established and proved by the weight of credible evidence.’ Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, 425 Pa. 133, 136 , 288 A.2d 742 , 744 (1967). Because the guilt or innocence of the accused is not in question, however, Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, supra, the Commonwealth’s burden is not measured against the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard, but merely against the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard. ‘[C]ompetent evidence to establish reasonable ground ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““While [appellants’ identification] may not be clear beyond a reasonable doubt, we are not bound by that weighty standard. It must be constantly recalled that we are not dealing with the ultimate matter of guilt or innocence. Appellants will have ample opportunity to attack the testimony of the witnesses in more detail, and with the benefit of a more stringent standard of proof, at trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.