Ridgeway v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 357 · 1977
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Mauro (1978), United States v. Crozier (2001)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Carbo v. United States · Rosecrans v. United States · United States v. Ford · United States v. Roberts · United States of America Ex Rel. Frank Esola, 53517 v. Ronald M. Groomes, Superintendent
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. [I]t is the policy of the party States and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, information, or complaints. 87”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] detainer is simply a notice to prison authorities that charges are pending against an inmate elsewhere, requesting the custodian to notify the sender before releasing the inmate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““First, the appellee contends that the five transfers in this case were pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by a state court and honored as a matter of comity, by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Since the request was not made pursuant to Article IV of the Agreement, it is argued that the remedial provisions could not be relevant. . “The word ‘detainer,’ as it is used in the Agreement, is ‘a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.’ See Senate Report 91-1356, 91st Cong., 2d. Sess., 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 1970, p. 4865. This definition of a detainer from the Senate Report finds support in the other legislative history of the Agreement and is consistent with the purposes of the Agreement. “Although the legislative history of the federal enactment of the Agreement is not voluminous, perhaps because there was apparently no opposition to it in either the House of Representatives or Senate, the remarks of Representative Kastenmeier upon introduction of the bill make Clear that he considered a detainer to be simply a notice filed with the confining institution that criminal charges from another jurisdiction were outstanding and that the prisoner was wanted in order to stand trial on those charges. 116 Cong.Rec. 13999 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier). 24 The Committee Reports of both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judi”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.