Robert Earl Miller v. J. E. "Bill" Decker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Neither Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, nor the federal statute expressly negate the power of the states to provide for the extradition of persons who are not fugitives in the technical sense. The history of and the reason for the clause afford no basis for an interpretation that the .states impliedly relinquished their sovereignty in all extradition matters outside the sphere of the clause, and no reason has been advanced to us which would support or compel such an interpretation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Foss · Huddleston v. Costa

2. ““Morgan contended in a habeas corpus proceeding that, among other reasons, his extradition from California to Colorado was unlawful because that part of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act adopted by California allowing his extradition when he was not in the demanding state at the time of his alleged offense was repugnant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and the federal implementing legislation. Morgan had previously sought his release by writ of habeas corpus in the state courts and his constitutional arguments were rejected there. Ex parte Morgan, 86 Cal.App.2d 217 , 194 P.2d 800 [ (1948) ] (review refused by Supreme Court of California). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that he had made no showing of a violation of his rights under the Constitution to cause the Court to disturb the state courts’ interpretation of the meaning and applicability of the California statute. In its full consideration of the federal constitutional issue presented, the California District Court of Appeal had concluded that the state statute applied outside the sphere of the federal statute, was not inconsistent with it or an obstacle to the accomplishment of its purposes, and that the Federal Constitu tion and statute neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited the legislation by the state providing for extradition of persons not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense.” Miller, 411 F.2d at 304-05 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 966 F. Supp. 992 - Whelan v. Noelle

3. ““The cases relied on by appellant, cited heretofore, did not involve state legislation permitting extradition when the person charged was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense and they may be regarded only as recognizing the limitations of the extent and scope of the federal constitutional and statutory provision and not as determining the states’ power to enact legislation supplementary to the Constitution and federal statute.””

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