Ex Parte Rubens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The question to be considered by the asylum state is whether the indictment or affidavit satisfactorily shows that the fugitive has in fact been charged, however inartificially, with a crime in the state from which he fled.’ 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 14, page 336. “ ‘If more were required it would impose upon courts * * * the duty of a critical examination of the laws of states with whose jurisprudence and criminal procedure they can have only a general acquaintance. Such a duty would be an intolerable burden, * * * irritable to the just pride of the states, and fruitful of miscarriages of justice.’ Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U.S. 387 , 28 S.Ct. 714, 720 , 52 L.Ed. 1113 .” ( 73 Ariz. at 108 , 238 P.2d at 406-407 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Babbitt v. Kinman · State v. Stewart

2. ““ * * * The complaint in this case states all of the essential facts constituting the offense, and is sworn to in positive terms. It therefore takes the place and answers the purposes of the affidavit referred to in the federal statute and is sufficient both in form and in substance.” Bell v. Corless, 57 Utah 604 , 196 P. 568 , at pages 570, 571. “We next take cognizance of appellant’s assignments of error to the effect that the California warrant of arrest was not issued upon affidavits made before a magistrate. One of the affidavits complained of was signed by the complaining witness and was not executed before a magistrate. Several other affidavits which accompanied the request for extradition were signed before a notary public but not before the magistrate who issued the warrant. These affidavits attempted to bolster the charge made by the complaining witness who signed the criminal complaint. These affidavits were wholly unnecessary in that they attempted tó offer proof of the guilt of the accused which was not in issue before the governor or the court on habeas corpus. In re Harper, 17 Cal.App.2d 446 , 62 P.2d 390 , citing cases. The affidavit referred to in section 3182, U.S.C.A., supra, refers to the affidavit which must be made before the magistrate who issues the warrant of arrest. The warrant of arrest in this case was issued upon the verified complaint of the complaining witness. A verified complaint made before a magistrate is the same as an affidavit. State ex r”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Martz

3. ““1. ‘On the presentation of a requisition for a fugitive from justice, the governor of the asylum state must determine that the person demanded is substantially charged with a crime and is a fugitive from justice’. 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 15, page 339. The first of these considerations presents a question of law, while the second is a question of fact. (id.) “2. The accused must be charged by indictment or information or an affidavit made before a magistrate, (id.) “3. Before he issues his warrant, the governor must determine the jurisdictional facts but in so doing he is not required to demand proof apart from the proper requisition papers, (id.) “4. The governor is entitled to act on a statement in an affidavit accompanying the requisition that accused is a fugitive from justice, but such affidavit is not conclusive, and may be refuted, but the burden of showing that he is not a fugitive rests on the accused. 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 16b(3), page 344; 39 C.J.S., Ha-beas Corpus, § 39, page 555. “5. The governor’s warrant is not final and conclusive. Accused is entitled to bring habeas corpus. 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 17, page 347; 39 C. J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 39, page 548. When it comes before the court on habeas corpus, the court is under the same duty to find the jurisdictional facts, viz.: “1. That the complaint was made on an affidavit. “2. That it substantially charges an offense. “3. That it is made to appear that accused is a fugitive.” 73 Ariz. 101 at pages 105, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Ariz. App. 440 - State v. Flowers