55 Wis. 2d 574 - State Ex Rel. Garner v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 1984
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson · Humphrey v. Cady · Baxstrom v. Herold · Ponzi v. Fessenden
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him shall have appointed to receive him unless he shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall inform him of the demand made for his surrender and of the crime with which he is charged, and that he has the right to demand and procure legal counsel; and if the prisoner or his counsel shall state that he or they desire to test the legality of his arrest, the judge of such court of record shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed him within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.” (Italics ours.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the instant situation there are very real and important differences in the statutory rights to be accorded a sought-after prisoner depending upon which act is utilized by out-of-state authorities. There is no rational basis for the distinction. The prisoner who is sought under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act is accorded the rights to be informed of the custody request and his rights by a judge of a court of record. The prisoner who happens to be sought under the Uniform Detainer Act does not have this right to a judicial notification of the detainer and rights under the Act. Indeed, under the Act itself, he is not even entitled to notification of his right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The classification made between Wisconsin prisoners is irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable. ..... The Uniform Detainer Act, by not requiring a judicial hearing wherein a prisoner who is sought thereunder is explained his right to petition the governor or to bring appropriate challenging legal action, is constitutionally defective under the equal-protection clause of the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. 55 Wis.2d at 587-88 , 201 N.W.2d at 168 (footnotes omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as petitioner already has an attorney, is advised of his rights, and has launched specific objections to the custody transfer.”
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.