Caltagirone v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 739 · 1980
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), In re Extradition of Burt (1984)
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Roe v. Wade · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Gerstein v. Pugh · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Weinstein v. Bradford
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) a description of the person sought; (b) the location of the person sought, if known; (c) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including, if possible, the time and location of the offense; (d) a description of the laws violated; (e) a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or finding of guilt or judgment of conviction against the person sought; and (f) a statement that a request for extradition for the person sought will follow.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, ... any judge ... may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of an any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention ... issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such ... judge ... to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered .... If on such hearing, he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention ... he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the Secretary of State, that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities of such foreign government, for the surrender of such person, according to the stipulations of the treaty or convention; and he shall issue his warrant for the commitment of the person so charged to the proper jail, there to remain until such surrender shall be made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Sixth Amendment by its terms applies only to `criminal prosecutions,' and an extradition proceeding is not a `criminal prosecution.' "). 54 Here, plaintiffs allege that the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent Kerry Sanders failed to provide him with adequate representation at the extradition hearing. 10 Because the Sixth Amendmentright to counsel does not attach at an extradition hearing, and because plaintiffs have alleged no other proceeding at which Kerry Sanders would have been entitled to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, we find that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of the Sixth Amendment. 55 e. Eighth Amendment -- Failure to Protect from Harm 56 The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.