Josephine Greci v. John A. Birknes, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
527 F.2d 956 · 1976
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Eain v. Wilkes (1981), Sindona v. Grant (1980)
30 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Johnson v. Stevenson · Fernandez v. Phillips · Whitney v. Robertson · United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Collins v. Miller
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient according to the law of the requested Party to justify the committal for trial of the person sought if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in the territory of the requested Party”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sindona v. Grant · Caplan v. Vokes“[t]he warrant of arrest and deposition or other evidence, given under oath, ... shall be admitted in evidence in the examination of the request for extradition when [properly authenticated].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Treaties on extradition have commonly been interpreted as adopting state standards governing the sufficiency of the evidence to justify committal for trial, on the ground that most extraditable offenses were known only to state law. However, the cases to this effect were not decided under the treaty language now before us; and the circumstances surrounding adoption of the present language indicate that it was adopted in order to replace the traditional state standard with a federal one. The original version of Article V of the 1973 treaty provided that sufficiency would be determined according to the ‘laws of the place where the person sought shall be found,’ language similar to that in the 1868 Convention. In the 1970 negotiating session, the Italian delegation insisted that this be changed to ‘laws of the requesting Party.’ Both delegations appear to have been aware of cases construing the discarded language to refer to state law...; both appear to have contemplated that the change would ensure that this construction cannot be carried forward and that uniform federal law be applied.”
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.