Crumley v. Snead’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 481 · 1980
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Ross v. Meagan (1981), Major Harden v. George E. Pataki (2003)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3182 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Moor v. County of Alameda · Michigan v. Doran · Roberts v. Reilly · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · William John Wirth v. R. R. Surles, Officer, State Highway Patrol
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny denial of th[at] right gives rise to a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Interstate extradition of a fugitive is a matter of federal law originating from the United States Constitution. A person charged, in any State with Treason, Felony or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. U.S. Const.art. IV, § 2, cl. 2. Congress has enacted a general extradition law to effectuate this constitutional provision and to prescribe the procedure to be followed by officials of the demanding and asylum states. 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 wi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Good v. Allain
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.