In Re Samet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. ““It may be conceded that, where a person is convicted in this state and pending his appeal, while at liberty on the supersedeas bond, is delivered by the Governor under requisition to a sister state, such delivery amounts to a waiver of the jurisdiction of this state over his person, and when, under such requisition, he is taken out of the state, he is not a fugitive, and this state would not have the right thereafter to extradite him from another state as a fugitive.” “Since the rendering of petitioner to the authorities of the state of Missouri was a waiver of the right of this state to return the petitioner to this state after his release there, he could have successfully resisted any attempt by the authorities of this state to return him here””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Habeas Corpus of Anderson v. State · In Re the Habeas Corpus of Langley

2. ““In the case at bar, the instrument is in fact what purports to be, a parole, for a definite purpose, ‘to the custody of the New York Parole Authorities for return to imprisonment in that State’, with the distinct understanding, as set forth therein, that, T am to remain on parole until such time as my parole is revoked, or I may be granted a pardon by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma.’ In addition thereto, it was provided, T hereby waive all extradition rights and process and agree to return to Oklahoma at any time during my parole that I am directed to do so by the Pardon and Parole Officer. Furthermore, there was attached to the conditions, a special condition, as follows: ‘It is a special condition of the parole that the said William Peter Samet, No. 47295, shall’ be released under this parole only in the custody to the New York Police authorities for return to imprisonment in that State.’ Moreover, in the instructions contained in said parole, we observe, that it provided, ‘I am also fully aware that, under the law, the Governor, where recommended by the Pardon and Parole Officer, may remand or revoke my parole at any time, and for any reason by him deemed sufficient.’ It is thus apparent that the objects and purposes of the release of the petitioner by the State of New York are definite, certain, and unqualified and wholly without ambiguity. To all of the foregoing conditions, the petitioner agreed over his signature which, by him, became a contractual obligation w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rider v. McLeod