366 So. 2d 698 - Rayburn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A warrant of extradition must not be issued unless the documents presented by the executive authority making the demand show ... that he [the accused] is lawfully charged by indictment or by an information filed by a prosecuting officer and supported by affidavit to the facts, or by affidavit made before a magistrate in that state, with having committed a crime under the laws of that state, or that he has been convicted of crime in that state and has escaped from confinement or broken his parole.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Emmons v. State · Gage v. State

2. “‘“Where the [extradition] proceeding is based on an affidavit, the affidavit must contain facts from which the governor of the asylum state may determine that there is probable cause to believe that the person demanded committed the crime with which he is charged; it should set forth the facts and circumstances relied on to prove the crime, or it must set out the alleged crime with sufficient explicitness to apprise the governor who receives it of the facts which constitute the offense, while an indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause.’ 35 C.J.S. Extradition § 14(7).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Emmons v. State · Harris v. State

3. ““.‘In interstate extradition proceedings, a complaint [or affidavit] sworn to by a person who does not pretend to have any personal knowledge of the facts, but who merely states the charge on his information and belief, is generally insufficient to support rendition of the accused. It is said that to hold otherwise would enable irresponsible people to make false charges against those with whom they are at enmity and would permit them to secure the arrest of innocent persons on papers regular in form but fraudulent in fact. But in some jurisdictions a complaint may be made on information and belief, provided the affiant or complainant sets forth the sources and details of the information on which it is based.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State