specialty doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

specialty doctrine in Washington

5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Nazareth Andonian, Vahe Andonian, Ruben Saini, Raul Vivas, and Juan Carlos Seresigreen
ca9 · 1994 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

1997Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 (1995).

22
John W. Martin Construction Co. v. Norwest Bank Kalispell, N. A.green
scotus · 1995 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

1997Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 (1995).

22
United States v. Steven Paul Valot, Steven Paul Valot v. United Statesgreen
ca9 · 1980 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See United States v. Valot, 625 F.2d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1980).

11
United States v. Joel D. Davis, (Two Cases)green
ca4 · 1992 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997Cir. 1989) (reserving question of standing)); United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992) (declining to address the standing issue); United States v. Herbage, 850 F.2d 1463, 1466 (11th Cir. 1988) ("For purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that an individual has standing to allege a violation of the specialty principle.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027 (1989).

11
Desantiago-Martinez v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1995 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

11
United States v. Alex William Herbagegreen
ca11 · 1988 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997Cir. 1989) (reserving question of standing)); United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992) (declining to address the standing issue); United States v. Herbage, 850 F.2d 1463, 1466 (11th Cir. 1988) ("For purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that an individual has standing to allege a violation of the specialty principle.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027 (1989).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Pang green
wash · 1997
2 sentences

2006State v. Pang, 132 Wn.2d 852, 902 , 940 P.2d 1293 (1997).

2006State v. Pang, 132 Wn.2d 852, 902 , 940 P.2d 1293 (1997).

22006–2006
Ake v. Oklahoma green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2006However, he speculates that several issues could arise, including the “doctrine of specialty” 6 or the principle of dual criminality. 7 French also argues the trial court’s denial of a translator violates Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 84 L.

2006However, he speculates that several issues could arise, including the “doctrine of specialty” 6 or the principle of dual criminality. 7 French also argues the trial court’s denial of a translator violates Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 84 L.

22006–2006
United States v. Rauscher green
scotus · 1886
2 sentences

1997A COURT MAY NOT IMPLY ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON PROSECUTION IN THE FACE OF EXPRESS LIMITATIONS INCLUDED IN THE TREATY The majority relies on United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 , 7 S. Ct. 234 , 30 L.

1997A COURT MAY NOT IMPLY ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON PROSECUTION IN THE FACE OF EXPRESS LIMITATIONS INCLUDED IN THE TREATY The majority relies on United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 , 7 S. Ct. 234 , 30 L.

21997–1997
State v. Young green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2006State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 693 , 888 P.2d 142 (1995).

2006State v. Young, 125 Wash.2d 688, 693 , 888 P.2d 142 (1995).

12006–2006
Factor v. Laubenheimer green
scotus · 1933
2 sentences

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

11997–1997
Cady v. Dombrowski green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

11997–1997
Splinter v. Hanrahan green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

11997–1997
Gomez v. Superior Court of California green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1997III, 15 Stat. 631 ), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 , 93 S.Ct. 552 , 34 L.Ed.2d 511 (1972). [17] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287 , 54 S.Ct. 191, 193 , 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); accord United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) ("We look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 938 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995). [18] See majority at 1322. [19] Eric P. Wempen, Note, United States v. Puentes: Re-Examining Extradition Law and the Specialty Doctrine

11997–1997
Fiocconi v. Attorney General of the United States green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1997Fiocconi v. Attorney Gen., 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972) and United States v. Kaufman, 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1988).

11997–1997
Herbage v. United States green
scotus · 1989
1 sentence

1997Cir. 1989) (reserving question of standing)); United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992) (declining to address the standing issue); United States v. Herbage, 850 F.2d 1463, 1466 (11th Cir. 1988) ("For purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that an individual has standing to allege a violation of the specialty principle.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027 (1989).

11997–1997
Charles Laurent Fiocconi and Jean Claude Kella v. Attorney General of the United States green
ca2 · 1972
1 sentence

1997Fiocconi v. Attorney Gen., 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972) and United States v. Kaufman, 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1988).

11997–1997
United States v. Steven Warren Kaufman, A/K/A John Rayford, Leonard Joseph Kissell, James Gregory Smith, Perry Franks and Paddy D. Franks green
ca5 · 1988
1 sentence

1997Fiocconi v. Attorney Gen., 462 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1059 (1972) and United States v. Kaufman, 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1988).

11997–1997

Where else courts name it

MI 16 (2002–2023) WA 5 (1997–2026) NH 3 (2001–2002) AZ 2 (2012–2026) CO 2 (1983–2024) PA 2 (2016–2023) TN 2 (1987–1998) TX 2 (2010–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check