green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gordon
See Fiocconi v. Attorney General of United States, 462 F.2d 475, 481 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pang
See Opinion Appendix "B." [99] 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [100] Id. at 481 (quoting Extradition Convention between U.S. and Italy, 1868, Art.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pang
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Opinion Appendix "B.” 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
U.S.A. Ex Rel. Lolita Saroop v. Jesus A. Garcia. Lolita Saroop
Because standing was argued before the district court we will address it. 6 "The rule of specialty is based on principles of international comity and is designed to guarantee the surrendering nation that the extradited individual will not be subject to indiscriminate prosecution by the receiving government." Leighnor v. Turner, 884 F.2d 385, 389 (8th Cir. 1989); see Fiocconi v. Attorney General of United States, 462 F.2d 475, 481 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 34 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Saroop v. Garcia
"The rule of specialty is based on principles of international comity and is designed to guarantee the surrendering nation that the extradited individual will not be subject to indiscriminate prosecution by the receiving government." Leighnor v. Turner, 884 F.2d 385, 389 (8th Cir. 1989); see Fiocconi v. Attorney General of United States, 462 F.2d 475, 481 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972); 5 Riviere, 924 F.2d 1289, 1300-1301 (3d Cir. 1991); Matta- Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 259 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878 (1990) ("It is well established that individuals have no…
discussed
Cited "see"
Tang Yee-Chun v. Immundi
See Fiocconi v. Attorney General, 462 F.2d 475, 478-81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). *1012 The Claimed Lack of Notice The petitioners assert that they were inadequately informed of the charges made against them because only one complaint was filed by the United States Attorney, and this came before the filing of the formal request for extradition.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Evans
See Fiocconi v. Attorney General of the United States, 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Najohn
See Fiocconi v. Attorney General, 462 F.2d 475, 480 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salzmann
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Fiocconi v. Attorney General, 462 F.2d 475, 478 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972); Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921, 935 (1st Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918 , 69 S.Ct. 640 , 93 L.Ed. 1081 (1949); United States v. Sobell, 142 F.Supp. 515, 524 (S.D.N.Y.1956), aff’d, 244 F.2d 520 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 873 , 78 S.Ct. 120 , 2 L.Ed.2d 77 (1957).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billman
Donnelly v. Mulligan, 74 F.2d 220 (2nd Cir. 1934); see also Fiocconi v. Attorney General of United States, 462 F.2d 475 , 478 n.4 (2nd Cir.) (referring to the French treaty as conferring such a right), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972); Khan, 993 F.2d at 1373-75 (implicitly interpreting similar provision in the extradition treaty between the United States and Pakistan as confer- ring such a right); cf. Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 422 (stating that a court can- not decline to give force to a "specialty" provision in an extradition treaty which does not explicitly confer a right in the defendant hims…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Tom J. Billman
Donnelly v. Mulligan, 74 F.2d 220 (2nd Cir.1934); see also Fiocconi v. Attorney General of United States, 462 F.2d 475 , 478 n. 4 (2nd Cir.) (referring to the French treaty as conferring such a right), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972); Khan, 993 F.2d at 1373-75 (implicitly interpreting similar provision in the extradition treaty between the United States and Pakistan as conferring such a right); cf. Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 422 (stating that a court cannot decline to give force to a "specialty" provision in an extradition treaty which does not explicitly confer a right in the defendant himself,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jurado-Rodriguez
Riviere, 924 F.2d at 1299 (relying on United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.1986)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1009 , 107 S.Ct. 652 , 93 L.Ed.2d 707 (1986); see also Fiocconi v. United States, 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.) (an individual cannot avoid prosecution by asserting his own rights under the treaty contrary to the intention of the extraditing country), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Department of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point, North Carolina v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Morris, supra, at 766-67 (test “has no application to matters involving an employer and bargaining unit employees— it applies only to matters involving individuals or conditions outside the bargaining unit”); see also AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Comm. for Phelps Dodge v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 374, 378 (3d Cir.) (“The fact that a demand may have extra-unit effects does not alter its status as a mandatory subject of bargaining.”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 553 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Oil, Chemical And Atomic Workers, International Union, Aflcio, Et Al. v. National Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Comm. of Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 553 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, International Union v. National Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Comm. of Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 553 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cady, Warden
v.
Dombrowski
v.
Dombrowski
No. 72-586.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1972.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.