Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 U.S. 86 - Pacileo v. Walker

Pacileo v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2006 · most notably Alabama v. Battles (1981), Hooks v. Hooks (1985)

17 federal appellate · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 states

650198119902000decided

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 Michigan v. Doran · Sweeney v. Woodall · United States v. Morrison

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

  1. “A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. ... Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “claims as to constitutional defects in the Arkansas penal system should be heard in the courts of Arkansas, not those of California.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To allow plenary review in the asylum state of issues that can be fully litigated in the charging state would defeat the plain purposes of the summary and mandatory procedures authorized by Art. IV, Sec. 2”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.