Hoxha v. Levi’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.3d 554 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Kiyemba v. Obama (2009), Khouzam v. Attorney General of the United States (2008)
17 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. · Texas v. United States · Fernandez v. Phillips · Terlinden v. Ames · Gallina v. Fraser
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“serves interests of international comity by relegating to political actors the sensitive foreign policy judgments that are often involved in the question of whether to refuse an extradition request.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[H]umanitarian considerations are within the purview of the executive branch and generally should not be addressed by the courts in deciding whether a petitioner is extraditable.”); Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009 , 1116 (9th Cir.2005) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he distinction between 'contradictory evidence' and 'explanatory evidence’ is difficult to articulate. However, the purpose behind the rule is reasonably clear. In admitting ‘explanatory evidence,’ the intention is to afford an accused person the opportunity to present reasonably, clear-cut proof which would be of limited scope and have some reasonable chance of negating a showing of probable cause. The scope of this evidence is restricted to what is appropriate to an extradition hearing. The decisions are emphatic that the extraditee cannot be allowed to turn the extradition hearing into full trial on the merits.”
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.