State v. McCurley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “.The general rule regarding extradition in this state is that when a governor from a demanding state requisitions extradition and certifies that the respondent committed the crime while in the demanding state, and that the duly authenticated accusatory document is genuine and states a crime under the laws of that state, such facts authorize the arrest and extradition of the defendant. The introduction of the Governor’s extradition warrant creates a presumption that all the requirements for extradition have been met. Once this prima facie showing has been made, it is the appellant’s burden to prove he is not the person wanted or was not in the demanding state at the time of the crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sonkin v. State

2. “It shall be the duty of the governor, on demand made by the executive authority of any other state, territory or district for any person charged, on affidavit or indictment in such other state, territory or district, with a criminal offense and who shall have fled from justice and be found in this state, the demand being accompanied with a copy of the affidavit or indictment certified as authentic by such executive authority, to cause the offender to be arrested and delivered up to the authority of such state, territory or district for removal to the jurisdiction having cognizance of the offense....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sonkin v. State

3. “Miss.Code Ann. § 7-1-25(2) [and similar statutes from other states permit] extradition of persons committing crimes which violated the demanding states criminal statutes while not being physically present in the demanding state. These statutes which in no way offend federal extradition law, rather, they complement it.... The theory of constructive presence as found in § 7-1-25 alters the requirements of fugitivity which is traditionally found in criminal settings. In conclusion, we reiterate that Mississippi courts are not the proper forum for the parties to air their claims....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sonkin v. State