In Re Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 1997 · most notably 53 Cal. 2d 772 - In Re Cooper (1960), State v. Winckler (1977)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 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. § 662
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Hyde v. United States · Hyde v. United States · Nippert v. City of Richmond · Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Governor of this State may also surrender, on demand of the Executive Authority of any other State, any person in this State charged in such other State in the manner provided in Section 3 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, and the provisions of this Article not otherwise inconsistent, shall apply to such cases, even though the accused was not in that State at the time of the commission of the crime, and has not fled therefrom.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the Cassis case, after referring to the quoted clause of the Constitution, the court said, 29 S. E. 2d at page 248 : ‘It in no sense purports to limit extradition to these cases. It does not forbid a state to yield up to another state one charged with crime but who has not in fact fled from that other state. No reason in law, expediency or comity has been suggested why extradition should be limited to those who were physically in the state at the time the crime was committed. Many crimes may be committed in a state while the culprit remains without its borders. This is particularly true where such offender acts through an agent or a conspirator.’ In English v. Matowitz, supra, the court said [ 148 Ohio St. 39 , 72 N. E. 2d 900 ] : ‘The federal enactments relating to extradition do not expressly or impliedly coyer a situation such as that presented in the case at bar, and, since they do not, it would seem that there is no conflict between the federal and state enactments and that the latter merely supplement the former. It is to he observed that there are no negative provisions in the U. S. Constitution or federal legislation forbiddmg the extradition of one not physically present at the .scene of crime in the demanding state. (Italics ours.) “Statutes adopted by the states are not necessarily invalid if they cover a field in which the Constitution empowers Congress to legislate. The regulation of interstate commence is a matter exclusively within the power of Congress (Co”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`No reason in law, expediency or comity has been suggested why extradition should be limited to those who were physically in the state at the time the crime was committed. Many crimes may be committed in a state while the culprit remains without its borders. This is particularly true where such offender acts through an agent or a conspirator.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. McDermott
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.