306 So. 2d 156 - State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2007
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3182
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Ex Parte in the Matter of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. William Dennison Governor and Executive Authority of the State of Ohio · Bassing v. Cady
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.
““In this habeas corpus proceeding, the extent of inquiry is narrow. It has been said that the inquiry is limited to reviewing the governor in his determination that the jurisdictional prerequisites to the issuance of his warrant exist. Chase v. State ex rel. Burch, 93 Fla. 963 , 113 So. 103 (1927). In Sullivan v. State ex rel. Pardew, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 800 , the jurisdictional prerequisites for an extradition warrant requested by the State of New York were held to be: ‘. . . (1) Whether petitioner was the person charged. (2) Whether petitioner was substantially charged with a crime in the State of New York. (3) Whether petitioner was a fugitive from justice, section 941.03, F.S.A., or whether he committed an act in a third state which intentionally resulted in the commission of a crime in the demanding State, 941.06. (4) Whether the indictment was certified as authentic by the Governor of the demanding State.’ ” 306 So.2d at 158 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gale“Consideration of these factors requires the production of evidence that is beyond the scope of an extradition proceeding and more suitable to determination in the court of the demanding state. It must be assumed that one who is subject to extradition will receive all of his constitutional safeguards upon his return to the demanding state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The question of whether an accused is a fugitive from justice asks nothing more than whether he was bodily present in the demanding state at the time of the offense and thereafter departed from that state.”
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.