Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 U.S. 5 - Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker

Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker’s Empirical Analysis

299 U.S. 5 · 1936

Citation profile

353
cited by 353 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

133 federal appellate · 30 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 353 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Munaf v. Geren (2008), United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)

133 federal appellate · 30 district · 35 state decisions

7601936194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States ex rel. Neidecker v. Valentine (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Edye v. Robertson · United States v. Rauscher · Charlton v. Kelly · Factor v. Laubenheimer

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

  1. “is not confided to the Executive in the absence of treaty or legislative provision.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Neither of the contracting- parties shall be bound to extradite its own nationals. The competent executive authority of the Requested State, however, shall have the power to grant the extradition of its own nationals if, in its discretion, this is deemed proper to do so and provided the law of the Requested State does not so preclude.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as the treaty with France fails to grant the necessary authority, the President is without power to surrender the respondents.”
    6 later decisions 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.