green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nolan
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 903 (2nd Cir.1973), cert. dismissed 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973), (rejecting defendant’s efforts to exclude documents not mentioned in certificate identifying materials submitted in support of an extradition request as “savoring of technicality” which “is particularly inappropriate in dealings with a foreign nation.”) (quotation omitted). 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Paolo Lo Duca v. United States
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 , 901 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973); Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 290 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir.1961). 7 We note that, traditionally, it is “courts” and not “judges” that exercise Article III power.
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Extradition of Sidali
See, Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 902-903 (2d Cir.1973), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Howard v.
Rather, the officer _____ acts in a non-institutional capacity by virtue of a "special authority." In re Metzger, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 176, 191 (1847); see _____________ ___ also Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 , 901 n.3 (2d Cir.) ____ _______ __________ (applying same principle to current statutory provision), cert. _____ dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 (1973); Mackin, 668 F.2d at 125-30 _________ ______ (same); Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 290 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. _______ ____________ 1961) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Extradition of Sandhu
See Shay *325 piro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Extradition of Matus
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973) (citing United States v. Paroutian, 299 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.1962)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby
See Fri v. Sierra Club, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 33 , 38 L.Ed.2d 132 (1973) (finding that an amicus has no standing to independently seek a rehearing); Texas v. Jefferson Iron Co., 60 Tex. 312, 315 (1883) ("Our court has recognized the right of an amicus curiae to speak, and has held that while such volunteer action of counsel is permissible," the court, "upon being so informed, could do only that which it could do without such action of counsel, and no more.”); see abo Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396, 403 (1880).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gill v. Imundi
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 907 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973) (citing Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 311 , 42 S.Ct. 469, 470 , 66 L.Ed. 956 as authority for grant of writ of habeas corpus where evidence “sufficed as to one count in an extradition proceeding but not as to another”). 20 Such a result allows the Indian government to pursue afresh any or all of the extradition charges in the manner contemplated by the statutory scheme, see In re Mackin, 668 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir.1981) (noting power of requesting party to refile t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Esposito v. Adams
See Matter of Assarsson, 635 F.2d at 1246 (certification of United States diplomatic officials is conclusive proof that the document is “properly and legally” authenticated and thus admissible) (quoting Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 904 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973)); Cucuzzella v. Kelikoa, 638 F.2d 105, 106-07 (9th Cir.1981); Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1103 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1036 , 101 S.Ct. 612 , 66 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); In re Demjanjuk, 612 F.Supp. 544, 548 (N.D.Ohio 1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cabrera Sarmiento
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Najohn
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 906 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the Extradition of Tafoya
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905-06 (2nd Cir.1973), cert. dism’d, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973), and Article 12 of the Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Canada, T.I.A.S.
cited
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Jan Alf Assarsson, Relator-Appellant
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 902 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 33 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Francesco Caltagirone v. George v. Grant, United States Marshal
See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct. 347, 348 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). 24 If, however, the extradition proceeding in the district court results in Caltagirone’s release — either because the documents appended to the Italian request do not establish probable cause to believe he has committed an extraditable offense in Italy, Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 901 (2d Cir.), petition for cert. dismissed by agreement of the parties, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973), or because the Secretary of State declines in his discretion to extradite C…
cited
Cited "see"
Sindona v. Grant
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 901 (2 Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
Michele Sindona v. George v. Grant, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, George v. Grant, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York v. Michele Sindona
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 901 (2 Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Montgomery Hooker, Appellant-Petitioner v. Frank X. Klein, United States Marshal, N.D. Of California, Appellee-Respondent
(2×)
See Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 901 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. dismissed by agreement of parties, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
This charge is also a statement of the law of New York in that a conspirator is liable as an accomplice or principal for the criminal acts committed by her coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if she took no part in the actual culmination (People v Collins, 234 NY 355 ; see Shapiro v Ferrandina, 478 F2d 894, 914, petition for cert dsmd 414 US 884 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Maguna-Celaya v. Haro
See, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Extradition of Schweidenback
It can hardly be fatal to a treaty arrangement between two high contracting parties that it turns out that the fugitive is actually found in a district other than the district from which the warrant issued. *115 Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 355 F.Supp. 563, 568 (S.D.N.Y.1973); see also Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 898 (2 Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973) (“[Cjommon sense dictates a holding that such a complaint and warrant would support an arrest in another district, provided that the government reasonably and in good faith believed that the person…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandhu v. Bransom
See, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 899-900 (2nd Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973); Ahmad v. Wigen, 726 F.Supp. 389, 397-99 (E.D.N.Y.1989), aff’d, 910 F.2d 1063 (2nd Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Extradition of Curtis Andrew Howard. United States of America v. Curtis Andrew Howard
(2×)
Rather, the officer acts in a non-institutional capacity by virtue of a “special authority.” In re Metzger, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 176,191 ,12 -L.Ed. 104 (1847); see also Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 , 901 n. 3 (2d Cir.) (applying same principle to current statutory provision), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973); Mackin, 668 F.2d at 125-30 (same); Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 290 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. 1961) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Howard v.
Rather, the officer acts in a non-institutional capacity by virtue of a "special authority." In re Metzger, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 176, 191 (1847); see also Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 , 901 n.3 (2d Cir.) (applying same principle to current statutory provision), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 (1973); Mackin, 668 F.2d at 125-30 (same); Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 290 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. 1961) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joel D. Davis, (Two Cases)
Compare, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 906 (2nd Cir.) (principle of specialty arises out of treaty between two sovereign nations and, thus, is a privilege of the extraditing state, not a right accruing to the accused), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973), with, e.g., United States v. Cuevas, 847 F.2d 1417, 1426 (9th Cir.1988) (individual defendant may assert objections that the extraditing nation would be entitled to raise), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012 , 109 S.Ct. 1122 , 103 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Kenneth Leighnor, Jr. v. C.A. Turner, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri
Compare United States v. Kaufman, 874 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (denial of petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc) (stating that only a nation that is a party to a treaty may complain of a breach of the treaty) and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 584 (6th Cir.1985) (stating that “[t]he right to insist on application of the principle of specialty belongs to the requested state, not to the individual whose extradition is requested”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016 , 106 S.Ct. 1198 , 89 L.Ed.2d 312 (1986) and Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 47…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk
Accord Assarsson, 635 F.2d 1237, 1244-45 (7th Cir.1980); (interpretation of a virtually identical extraterritorial jurisdiction provision in the United States-Sweden Treaty of Extradition, 14 U.S.T. 1845; the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the United States-Sweden Treaty on the same day as it considered the United States-Israel Treaty), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 938 , 101 S.Ct. 2017 , 68 L.Ed.2d 325 (1981); Assarsson, 687 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir.1982); see also Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F,2d 894, 906 (2d Cir.1973), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (19…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerald Joseph Caplan v. Thomas R. Vokes, 1 in His Capacity as United States Marshal, and Alexander M. Haig, United States Secretary of State
Compare Brauch v. Raiche, 618 F.2d 843, 847-51 (1st Cir. 1980) with Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905-09 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hu Yau-Leung v. Soscia
See, e. g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 , 910 n. 18 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973) (endorsing reference “to federal law-when there is some-as a gauge for [the] gravity” of the offense for which extradition is sought); Garcia-Guillern v. United States, 450 F.2d 1189 , 1192 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 989 , 92 S.Ct. 1251 , 31 L.Ed.2d 455 (1972) (federal not state statute of limitations controls); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Locatelli
See, e. g., Shapiro v. Ferrardina, 478 F.2d 894, 900-01 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973). 10 To this end, I may only receive evidence offered by the accused that “explains” the demanding country’s proof.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cacavas
v.
General Motors Corp.
v.
General Motors Corp.
No. 71-5856.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1973.
Consideration, Motion, Took.
Published
405 U. S. 993. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.