Santos v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.3d 987 · 2016
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3182 · 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3186 · 18 U.S.C. § 3190 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brinegar v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · United States v. Lovasco · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Lego v. Twomey
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the extradition magistrate had jurisdiction over the individual sought, (2) the treaty was in force and the accused’s alleged offense fell within the treaty’s terms, and (3) there is ‘any competent evidence’ supporting the probable cause determination of the magistrate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To have witnesses produced to contradict the testimony for the prosecution is obviously a very different thing from hearing witnesses for the purpose of explaining matters referred to by the witnesses for the government”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the district court's judgment de novo. In this context, that means that, with respect to the extradition court, we stand in the same position as did the district court.”
2 later decisions 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.