68 Ohio App. 397 - State v. Gregg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The question presented in this case is whether or not in a habeas corpus action in an extradition proceeding, evidence that the prosecution was in bad faith and for the purpose of collecting a civil debt is admissible. “Prior to its repeal by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act by the General Assembly of Ohio, on April 29, 1937, Sec. 110, G.C., relating to extradition, provided: ‘The demand or application must be accompanied by sworn evidence that the party charged is a fugitive from justice, and that the demand is made in good faith for the punishment of crime and not for the purpose of the collection of debt or pecuniary mulct * * *.’ “While Sec. 110, G.C., was in effect there were decisions in Ohio holding that evidence as to the motive and good faith of the prosecution would be received in a habeas corpus action. ****** “Sec. 110, G.C., as stated, was repealed when the new extradition law was passed which is now found in Sec. 109-1 to 109-32, inclusive, G.C. “The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act in effect in Ohio does hot contain old Sec. 110, G.C., or any similar provision. Counsel for Mrs. Gregg, at the hearing, contended that Sec. 109-23, G.C., reenacts the substance of old Sec. 110, G.C. An examination of Sec. 109-23, G.C., shows that it applies only to what the application of a prosecuting attorney in this state to the Governor of Ohio must contain when extradition is sought from another state, of a person charged with crime in this state. Sec. 109-23, G.C., provid”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 Okla. Crim. 345 - Ex Parte Scott