Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 594 F.2d 610 - McBride v. Soos

McBride v. Soos’s Empirical Analysis

594 F.2d 610 · 1979

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
September 2012
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Sami v. United States (1979), Caruth v. Pinkney (1982)

30 federal appellate · 1 district ·

35019791980199020002010decided

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. § 3182 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Carey v. Piphus · Roberts v. Reilly · William John Wirth v. R. R. Surles, Officer, State Highway Patrol · Sanders v. Conine

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]here the violation of state law causes the deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution and statutes of the United States.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The obligation imposed on states to extradite fugitives from justice within its borders to the state from which he has fled upon proper demand from that state is rooted in the Constitution. Art. 4, § 2, cl. 2. This constitutional provision is implemented by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3182 . Before an individual can be extradited, the governor of the asylum state must determine: (1) whether the person demanded is substantially charged with a crime; and (2) whether the person demanded is a fugitive from justice from the state making the demand.”
    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.