Brown v. Nutsch’s Empirical Analysis
619 F.2d 758 · 1980
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Ross v. Meagan (1981), Draper v. Coombs (1986)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Paul v. Davis
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“improper extradition in violation of the extradition clause and statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Where the alleged fugitive has been subsequently constitutionally convicted in the demanding state, something more than mere noncompliance with the extradition statutes would have to be shown to provide a basis for compensatory damages, since if there is probable cause to arrest that person and try him on charges pending in the demanding state and he is subsequently convicted, there appears to be no basis for damages absent special circumstances or physical harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. ... Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pfaff v. Wells
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.