Kaiser v. Rutherford’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 152
Relies on Collins v. Loisel · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Gibbons · Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville · Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh · United States v. Sensi
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“therefore he has no standing to raise this issue.... Even assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff had standing to assert a claim in this regard, the doctrine of specialty simply requires that the prosecution be based on the same facts as set forth ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pang“[t]he rule of specialty is not a right of the accused but is a privilege of the asylum state and therefore [the defendant] has no standing to raise this issue”
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.