green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.8 score
“uch forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court”
Treatment trajectory · 1926 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1926
1976
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Chandler v. United States
(2×)
But see Ker v. Illinois, 1886, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Mohammad Shibin
uch forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bowman, Jerry v. Wilson, Lieutenant Scott E., Brig Officer, Naval Confinement Facility Philadelphia Naval Yard. Appeal of Lieutenant Scott E. Wilson
fjorcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objections to his trial in such court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Ker, 119 U.S. at 443, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , where the defendant was kidnapped from Peru and brought by force to the United States for trial, the Supreme Court held that it was not a “valid objection” for a defendant in a criminal case to raise the circumstance of “his forcible seizure in another country, and transfer by violence, force, or fraud to this country[.]” The Supreme Court explained its holding as follows: “[A]bduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him [or her] for such a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eric Gardiner
Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 438, 442-43 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 226, 228-29 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Antonio Fontana
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Antonio Fontana
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S. Ct. 225 , 30 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Nizar Trabelsi
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 440 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zhenli Gon v. Gerald Holt
See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (“This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886), that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’ ”); United States v. Shibin, 722 F.3d 233, 243 (4th Cir.2013) (holding, in an extradition case, that “[ujnder the Ker-Fris-bie doctrine, the manner in which the defendant is captured and brought to court is ge…
discussed
Cited "see"
Maria Almaguer v. State
(2×)
See id. at 669 (citing Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 443-44 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) (“There are authorities of the highest respectability which hold that such forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.”)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ghailani
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952). 15 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Aydiner
See 504 US at 661, 670 (“ ‘[S]uch forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offence, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.’ ” (quoting Ker v. Illinois, 119 US 436, 444 , 7 S Ct 225 , 30 L Ed 421 (1886))).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lichtenberg
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 662 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 , 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lichtenberg
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 662 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 , 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Judge
See id. at 660-61 , 112 S.Ct. at 2192 (citing Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 443 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 229 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Olivares-Rangel
(2×)
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 443 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) (holding that the constitution does not prevent criminal jurisdiction over a defendant who was forcibly abducted from another country); Frisbie, 342 U.S. at 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 ("This Court has never departed from the rule announced in [ Ker ] that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a `forcible abduction.'"); see also Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 119 , 95 S.Ct. 854 (reiterating the Court's "established rule" that illega…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bodmer
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 440-43 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583, 602 (2d Cir.1952) (“[T]he court in a criminal case, unlike a civil case, would still have jurisdiction over [a criminal defendant’s] person, as long as he was physically present at the trial.” (citing cases)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Hale
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) (finding no violation of due process under the federal constitution when defendant was "forcibly and with violence” abducted from Peru and brought to Illinois for trial); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (affirming state’s denial of habeas relief when defendant was “forcibly seized, handcuffed, blackjacked” and taken from Illinois to Michigan for trial); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 , 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992) (forcible abduction from Mexico). 60 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mir Aimal Kasi v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) (rejecting defendant’s claim that he was illegally subjected to trial in Illinois where a person acting on behalf of the United States gov *494 ernment, although armed with a warrant to effectuate the defendant’s removal from Peru pursuant to the applicable extradition treaty between the countries, opted instead to forcibly abduct defendant and return him to the United States without Peruvian assistance); cf. Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (relying upon Ker to hold, in the…
cited
Cited "see"
Black v. State
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perkins v. State
See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952)("[T]he power of a court to try a person for a crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a `forceable abduction.'")(citing Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886)).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Antonio NORIEGA, Defendant-Appellant
See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509, 511 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (“This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 229 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886), that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’”).
cited
Cited "see"
Anthony W. Barton v. Mark Norrod and Randy Pack, Individually
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) and Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537 , 13 S.Ct. 687 , 37 L.Ed. 549 (1893).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Aldana-Roldan
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 229 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886), Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramon Puentes
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
cited
Cited "see"
Sneed v. State
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward George Mitchell
See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) and Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) (collectively, the “Ker-Frisbie doctrine”); see also INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3479, 3483-84 , 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984); Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 260-61 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 209 , 112 L.Ed.2d 169 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Juan Ramon Matta, A/K/A Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros
See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509, 511 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (citing Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886)). 5 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rosenthal
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Harold Joseph Rosenthal, Philip Anthony Bonadonna, Robert Edward Dunleavy, Jr., George Lombardi, Garland Hubert Watson, Larry Roger Stewart, Joseph Vincent Junker, United States of America v. Rose Marie Junker, United States of America v. Dennis Wayne Wilson
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Najohn
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 441-42 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 227-28 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, and Michael Yamanis
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas D. Davis v. Bryant Muellar, as Sheriff of Rolette County, North Dakota
(2×)
See Ker v. Illinois, supra, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 ; United States v. Lira, 515 F.2d 68, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 847 , 96 S.Ct. 87 , 46 L.Ed.2d 69 (1975); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William C. Sorren
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1888); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 1344 (1952).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert J. Scios A/K/A Robert Schwartz
(2×)
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952); E.
discussed
Cited "see"
Crews v. United States
(2×)
Due process was satisfied so long as the defendant had “a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards.” Frisbie, supra at 522 , 72 S.Ct. at 512 ; see Ker, supra, 119 U.S. at 440 , 7 S.Ct. 225 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Humberto Lopez
See Ker v. Illinois, 1886, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 ; Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 112 , 96 L.Ed. 651 .
examined
Cited "see"
Frank S. Waits v. Hon. Raymond McGowan A. J. S. C., Monmouth County
(3×)
See Ker v. Illinois, supra, 119 U.S. at 443 , 7 S.Ct. 225 ; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 , 7 S.Ct. 234 , 30 L.Ed. 425 (1886); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
Fiocconi v. Attorney General of the United States
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) ; United States v. Unverzagt, 299 F. 1015 (W.D.Wash.1924), aff’d sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Dennis P. Kelly v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Hunt v. Eyman, 405 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1968); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bert Strand, Sheriff of San Diego County, State of California v. William Schmittroth
See Ker v. People of State of Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225, 229 , 30 L.Ed. 421 , where the accused was forcibly extradited from a foreign country and the jurisdiction of the state court was upheld.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. State
See also United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir.2006) (“[T]he means used to bring a criminal defendant before a court do not deprive that court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant”) (citing United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 661-62 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 , 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992) (in turn citing and quoting Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jamie Ceja
See United States v. Arbane, 446 F.2d 1223 , 1225 (11th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1530-31 (11th Cir.1984) (explaining the doctrine’s origins in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) and Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maximo Reyes-Vasquez v. William Scism
An extradition treaty outlines under what circumstances extradition is required but it does not “limit the discretion of the two sovereigns to surrender fugitives for reasons of comity, prudence, or even as a whim.” United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.1986); see also Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 441-42 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luevano v. Holder
Id., 468 U.S. at 1040 , 104 S.Ct. 3479 ; see also United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104, 1110 (10th Cir.2006) (discussing Lopez-Mendoza and concluding “[b]ased on the cases the Court cited, it appears that the majority was referencing the long-standing rule, known as the Ker [v. People of State of Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886)]-Frisbie [v .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Osama Awadallah
(2×)
The Supreme Court has established, in analogous cases, that a defendant "cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest." United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980) ("An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction."); see also Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 440 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886) ("[F]or mere irregularities in the manner in which he may be brought into custody of the law [in Ker's case, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
See id. at 669 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 ; see also Ker, 119 U.S. at 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 (stating that “[t]he [kidnapped] party himself would probably not be without redress, for he could sue [the kidnapper] in an action of trespass and false imprisonment, and the facts set out in the plea would without doubt sustain the action”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America Hector Berellez Bill Waters Pete Gruden Jack Lawn Antonio Garate-Bustamante Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program, Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program
See id. at 669 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 ; see also Ker, 119 U.S. at 444 , 7 S.Ct. 225 (stating that "[t]he [kidnapped] party himself would probably not be without redress, for he could sue [the kidnapper] in an action of trespass and false imprisonment, and the facts set out in the plea would without doubt sustain the action"). 13 Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the case proceeded to trial in 1992.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bridgewater
“This Court has never departed from the rule that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’ ” Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. at 661 , 112 S.Ct. 2188 , citing Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952); see also Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 7 S.Ct. 225 , 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Newhall
v.
Le Breton, Adm'r, Etc
v.
Le Breton, Adm'r, Etc
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 29, 1886.
Mr. Henry Beard and Mr. GhaJles H. Armes, for appellant,, Mr. Foams '8. Pillsbury, for appellees,
HaelaN.
per month until paid
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1) · Fourth Circuit (1)
Me. Justioe HaelaN
delivered the opinion of the court.
The amount secured to be paid by the deed of trust executed on the 1st day of October, 1870, by Juana M. Estudillo and others to Theodore Le Hoy, was $446,849 in gold coin of the United States. Whether that sum included the- $49,000 which is alleged to be due to Patterson, Wilson, Crittenden, and Felton for legal services rendered, cannot be determined by anything in the deed itself. The plaintiff, who sues as assignee of the claims of said attorneys, is compelled to resort to parol evidence to show that the parties to the deed intended to provide for the payment of the $49,000 out of the proceeds of the sale of the trust property, and to that end included it in the aggregate- of $446,849. If that evidence was competent, it-was the right of the defendant to show by parol evidence that the intention of the parties was to apply .the proceeds of sale to the reimbursement of Le Koy, for all advances and payments made and expenses incurred by him, before anything was paid on the claims of the attorneys. Looking at all the evidence, we are satisfied that these propositions are sustained, namely : 1. That the $49,000 was embraced in the[*265] $446,849; '2. Tbe former sum was not to be paid until Le Roy was reimbursed tbe entire amount dub. and to become due to bim on account of principal, interest, advances, and expenses. That tbe sales of tbe trust property fell short of meeting these latter demands by a large amount, is clearly established by the record of tbe suit in which tbe accounts of the trustee were audited and settled, and by other evidence in this cause. Upon tbe whole case we think the decree was right, and it is
Affirmed.