Ex Parte Kaufman’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1991
14 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3182 · 18 U.S.C. § 662
Relies on Ennist v. Baden · State Ex Rel. Gildar v. Kriss · In Re Morgan · Rice v. Magenheimer · State Ex Rel. Wells v. Hanley
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing alleging, except in cases arising under § 23-24-7, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he fled from the state, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has * * * broken the terms of his bail, probation or parole. * * * ” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where, as here, the person is described in the demand for extradition as a fugitive from justice rather than as a person charged with ‘committing an act in this state, or in a third state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state, whose executive authority is making the demand,’ the presence of the person in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense was committed is a vital condition to the validity of the extradition proceedings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We all know as a matter of fact that governors do exercise a discretion in such cases, and if they are satisfied that the demand is made for some ulterior and improper purpose—as, for example, the collection of a private debt—they refuse to issue a warrant. If a governor may exercise such a discretion in regard to issuing the warrant, we do not see why he may not exercise the same discretion in regard to revoking it, * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.