Haxhiaj v. Hackman’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.3d 282 · 2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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)
Relies on Fernandez v. Phillips · United States v. Alvarez-Machain · Gallina v. Fraser · Eain v. Wilkes · Escobedo v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing the extradition court’s finding of probable cause under § 3184, a federal habeas court applies a standard of review that “is at least as deferential, if not more so, than that applied to a magistrate judge’s decision to issue a search warrant.” Ordinola [v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588, 609-10 (4th Cir. 2007) ] (Trader, J., concurring). “Just as the magistrate judge’s underlying determination is not a mini-trial on the guilt or innocence of the fugitive, ... habeas review should not duplicate the extradition hearing.” Id. at 610 . Accordingly, our limited function in performing habeas review of the decision to issue a certificate of extradition is to determine whether there is “any evidence” in the record supporting the probable cause finding of the magistrate judge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.