Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 Ala. App. 40 - Johnson v. State

45 Ala. App. 40 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
August 1998
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 1998

22 state decisions

1401969197019801990decided

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 Drinkall v. Spiegel · Harris v. State · State Ex Rel. Treseder v. Remann · Kingsbury's case · Ross v. Crofutt

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

  1. ““ ‘The general rule seems to be well settled that either a convict who escapes, or one who is released from prison on parole and violates the terms of his parole, may be extradited from another state in which he is found, as a fugitive from justice, on the ground that he is a convict whose time has not expired, and who, therefore, is “charged with crime” under the United States Constitution. [[Image here]] “ ‘No narrow or strained construction should be placed upon the word “charged,” as used in the constitution in the federal statute. It is broad enough to include all classes of persons duly accused of crime. A person can be said to be “charged” with crime as well after his conviction as before....’ ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We think, then, the rule in Alabama should be consonant with the weight of authority to the effect that if the rendition warrant is defective but is accompanied by allied papers, either on the return to the writ of habeas corpus or introduced on the trial, which when taken together with the warrant, show that the executive of the asylum state did in fact have before him the necessary jurisdictional matters, viz., the documents required for the issuance of the warrant, then the prisoner is not illegally restrained. 89 A.L.R. [595], supra. This annotation reveals that many jurisdictions have adopted an even more liberal rule than is here urged. See Ross v. Crofutt, 84 Conn. 370 , 80 A. 90 ; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223 ; State ex rel. Burnett v. Flournoy, 136 La. 852 , 67 So. 929 ; Ex parte Devine, 74 Miss. 715 , 22 So. 3 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A warrant of extradition must not be issued unless the documents presented by the executive authority making the demand show that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that he thereafter fled from that state, and is now in this state, and that he 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.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.