Marcos Perez Jimenez v. Manuel Aristeguieta, Intervenor, and John E. Maguire’s Empirical Analysis
311 F.2d 547 · 1962
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Quinn v. Robinson (1986), Shapiro v. Ferrandina (1973)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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 Pauling v. McElroy · Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. · Albrecht v. United States · Underhill v. Hernandez · Fernandez v. Phillips
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though characterized as a dictator, appellant was not himself the sovereign — government—of Venezuela within the Act of State Doctrine. He was chief executive, a public officer, of the sovereign nation of Venezuela. It is only when officials having sovereign authority act in an official capacity that the Act of State Doctrine applies. Appellant’s acts constituting the financial crimes of embezzlement or malversation, fraud or breach of trust, and receiving money or valuable securities knowing them to have been unlawfully obtained ... were not acts of Venezuela sovereignty____ [EJach of these acts was “for the private financial benefit” of the appellant. They constituted common crimes committed by the Chief of State done in violation of his position and not in pursuance of it. They are as far from being acts of state as rape.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The accused is not entitled to introduce evidence which merely goes to his defense but he may offer limited evidence to explain elements in the case against him, since the extradition proceeding is not a trial of the guilt or innocence but of the character of a preliminary examination held before a committing magistrate to determine whether the accused shall be held for trial in another tribunal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Habeas corpus is available only to inquire whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offence charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.”
2 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.