93 Okla. Crim. 302 - Ex Parte Bledsoe’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1986
2 federal appellate · 5 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. § 3182 · 18 U.S.C. § 662
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Roberts v. Reilly · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Nippert v. City of Richmond · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To be a ‘fugitive from justice’ within the meaning of the federal law dealing with extradition, it is sufficient that person legally charged in demanding state with commission of crime within such state when sought to be subjected to its criminal process for the offense, has left its jurisdiction and is found within the jurisdiction of asylum state upon whose executive requisition is made. “Under provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, House Bill No. 37, approved by Governor on March 25, 1949, 22 O.S. Supp. § 1141.1 et seq., the courts of Oklahoma may not inquire into the guilt or innocence of person seeking release from custody under extradition warrant or make any inquiry into the motives or purposes of the prosecution. “Where extradition papers required by statute are in proper form and extradition warrant has been issued by the Governor, the only evidence admissible on habeas corpus to secure release from custody under the warrant of extradition is such as may tend to prove that defendant was not in demanding state at time crime was allegedly committed, or that the person sought to be extradited is not actually the person charged with the crime in the demanding state.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Extradition of person not present in demanding state at time of commission of crime. The governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the executive authority of another state, a person in this state charged in the other state in the manner provided in § 20 of this chapter with committing an act in this state, or a third state, ■ intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this chapter not otherwise inconsistent shall apply to those cases, even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled from that state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moser v. Zaborac
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.