State v. Tyler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Interstate extradition was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding in which it was never contemplated that an asylum state would conduct the kind of preliminary inquiry traditionally intervening between arrest and trial. [Michigan v.] Doran, supra, [ 439 U.S. 282 ] 99 S.Ct. [530] at 535 [ 58 L.Ed. 2d 521 (1978)]; Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 , 38 S.Ct. 41 , 62 L.Ed. 193 (1917); In re Strauss, 197 U.S. 324 , 25 S.Ct. 535 , 49 L.Ed. 774 (1905). The Louisiana statutes implementing the federal extradition provisions are found in Title VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (C.Cr.P. Arts. 261-280). The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides the basis for the Louisiana provisions. The extradition process is initiated when the prosecuting officer or the executive authority of another state makes a written demand upon the governor of this state for the return of a person wanted in that state (La.C.Cr.P. Art. 263). After investigation of the extradition demand the governor of this state may issue a warrant of arrest if satisfied that the person sought should be surrendered (La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 264, 265). A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. Doran, supra, 99 S.Ct. at 535 . Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release of a person arrested on a governor’s warrant can do no more than decide: (a) whether the extradition documents on their face”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. LeBleu v. Mitchell