Britton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2002
5 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 423 So. 2d 362 - State v. Soto · 192 So. 2d 307 - Blasi v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No demand for the extradition of a person charged with a crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing .., and accompanied by an authenticated copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of a warrant supported by an affidavit made before a committing magistrate of the demanding state; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sen tence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation, or parole ... and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction, or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lawrence v. Luster“If the legislature intended that something less than the document representing the official court action of conviction or sentence would be sufficient and that the risk, however small, of a mistake . . . was acceptable, we must presume [the statute] would have said so. The law commonly requires actual documents, as opposed to conclusory statements concerning those documents, and we see no justification for requiring less in an extradition proceeding involving the deprivation of liberty when the statutory requirement is explicit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Sousie
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.