Koskotas v. Roche’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.2d 169 · 1991
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Howard (1993), United States v. Lui Kin-Hong (1997)
24 federal appellate · 11 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. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3186 · 28 U.S.C. § 1782 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Rideout v. United States · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · United States v. Zannino · Bourjaily 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. whether the magistrate had jurisdiction; 2. whether the offense charged is within the treaty; and 3. whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Concerns of the sort raised here are for the executive branch because of its exclusive power to conduct foreign affairs, as extradition proceedings necessarily implicate the foreign policy interests of the United States. For these reasons the Secretary of State has sole discretion to determine whether a request for extradition should be denied because it is a subterfuge made for the purpose of punishing the accused for a political crime. Similarly, the degree of risk to [the relator’s] life from extradition is an issue that properly falls within the exclusive purview of the executive branch.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although it is within the discretion of the district court to permit the relator to offer limited, explanatory evidence relating to the charges against him, contradictory evidence properly may be excluded. While the line between ‘'contradictory” and ‘‘explanatory” evidence is not sharply drawn, the purpose of permitting explanatory evidence is to afford the relator ‘‘the opportunity to present reasonably clear-cut proof which would be of limited scope and have some reasonable chance of negating a showing of probable cause.””
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.