Plaster v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Requested State” (the United States is the Requested State here) would appear to apply equally to both countries, the diplomatic history reveals that the signato-iles did not intend that this language incorporate the United States Constitution into the treaty. Rather, an examination of the executive documents accompanying the treaty to the Senate for ratification demonstrates that this language, while written in neutral terms,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Extradition of Burt · In the Matter of Extradition of John Edward Burt to the Federal Republic of Germany

2. “It is critical to note ... that neither Fernandez v. Phillips nor the cases that have followed it have considered the scope of habeas corpus in connection with a claim that the actions of the United States government in extraditing the petitioner would violate his constitutional rights. It is well-settled, however, that the United States government must,.in carrying out its treaty obligations, conform its conduct to the requirements of the Constitution, and that treaty obligations cannot justify otherwise unconstitutional governmental conduct. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 , 16-19, 77 S.Ct. 1222 , 1230-32, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957) (plurality opinion); In re Aircrash, 684 F.2d 1301 , 1308-09 (9 Cir.1982); Chas. T. Main Int’l, Inc. v. Khuzestan Water & Power Auth., 651 F.2d 800 , 813 n. 20 (1 Cir.1981); Rosado v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 1179 , 1195-96 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856 , 101 S.Ct. 153 , 66 L.Ed.2d 70 (1980); Edwards v. Carter, 580 F.2d 1055 , 1058 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 2240 , 56 L.Ed.2d 406 (1978); Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211 , 1217 (D.C.Cir.) (specifically holding that the United States Constitution overrides the SOFA Treaty and the USA-FRG Supplementary Agreement), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 869 , 93 S.Ct. 197 , 34 L.Ed.2d 120 (1972); Bell v. Clark, 437 F.2d 200 , 203 (4 Cir.1971) (testing treaty against Constitution). [Although the Secretary of State and the President have the discretion not to extradite an individual for any reason wh”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Extradition of Burt · In the Matter of Extradition of John Edward Burt to the Federal Republic of Germany

3. “18 U.S.C. § 3184 provides in pertinent part: Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate authorized so to do by a court of the United States, ... may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of 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 justice, judge, or magistrate, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 345 F. Supp. 2d 538 - Mironescu v. Costner · 741 F. Supp. 362 - Spatola v. United States