Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 731 F.2d 294 - McDonald II v. Burrows

McDonald II v. Burrows’s Empirical Analysis

731 F.2d 294 · 1984

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Timothy J. Judd v. George A. Vose, Jr. (1987), Chewning v. Rogerson (1994)

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

1201984199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Michigan v. Doran · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Bingham v. Bradley

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

  1. “has no federal right to prevent the [state] courts from requiring him to repay debts that are the subject of his bankruptcy proceedings.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on ha-beas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugi tive. These are historic facts readily verifiable.”
    1 later decision 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.