Gill v. Imundi’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2016
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3186 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · United States v. Morrison · Pauling v. McElroy · Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If this were recognized as the legal right of the accused in extradition proceedings, it would give him the option of insisting upon a full hearing and trial of his case here; and that might compel the demanding government to produce all its evidence here, both direct and rebutting, in order to meet the defense thus gathered from every quarter. The result would be that the foreign government, though entitled by the terms of the treaty to the extradition of the accused for the purpose of a trial where the crime was committed, would be compelled to go into a full trial on the merits in a foreign country, under all the disadvantages of such a situation, and could not obtain extradition until after it had procured a conviction of the accused upon a full and substantial trial here. This would be in plain contravention of the intent and meaning of the extradition treaties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. an order granting them leave to present evidence that if extradited to India, they will be subjected to treatment and procedures “antipathetic to a federal court’s sense of decency”; 2. an order granting them leave to present evidence that they are refugees, and, if extradited to India, will be subject to persecution; 3. an order denying the extradition request in its entirety on the ground that controlling Indian law compels the government of India to try respondents on charges already lodged against them but for which their extradition has not been sought, thereby violating the extradition treaty and the rule of specialty; and 4. an order granting certain discovery requests. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hus no cases hold, as the government would have this court, that an adjudication in the courts of the requesting country that the very recanted statement upon which the requesting country here relies in an extradition proceeding is untrue and involuntary, is irrelevant to the certification ruling.”
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.