Cook v. Kern’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant contends that by proceeding under the Texas Uniform Parolee Supervision statute, Tex.Code Crim.Proe. art. 781c § 2(3), the State has denied him rights under the Texas extradition Law, Tex.Code Crim.Proe. Art. 1008a. Appellant argues that he has been deprived of his right to counsel, habeas corpus, bail, and ‘his fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution * * “Whatever the benefits appellant might have enjoyed under the Texas Extradition Statute, he has not been de prived of a federally protected right; therefore, the writ was properly denied. See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952); Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U.S. 192 , 27 S.Ct. 111 , 51 L.Ed. 148 (1906); Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364 , 25 S.Ct. 282 , 49 L.Ed. 515 (1905); “ ‘* * * [h]aving entered into such [parole] agreement, it is not discernible how or in what manner his constitutional rights are violated when it is sought, upon a violation, to obtain his return. Assuming, however, contrary to what we think that any constitutional right is involved, it is waived by the agreement which the parolee makes with the State.’ 228 F.2d at 826 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Johnson