Supreme Court of the United States, 1958

Karadzole v. Artukovic

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 20, 1958 · Black, Douglas

355 U.S. 393; 78 S. Ct. 381; 2 L. Ed. 2d 356; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1642 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Lawrence S. Lesser and George E. Danielson for petitioners., Solicitor General Rankin filed a memorandum for the United States., Robert T. Reynolds for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

William Joseph Quinn v. Glen Robinson, United States Marshal for the Northern District of California (9th Cir. 1986)
Ahmad v. Wigen (District Court, E.D. New York 1989)
Matter of Extradition of Artukovic (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1986)
Artukovic v. Rison (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1986)
In re the Extradition of Demjanjuk (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1985)
Ziyad Abu Eain v. Peter Wilkes, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois (7th Cir. 1981)
United States Ex Rel. Karadzole v. Artukovic (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1959)
Andrija Artukovic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1982)
Handel v. Artukovic (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1985)
In re the Requested Extradition of Doherty Ex Rel. Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
Samuel Shapiro v. Thomas E. Ferrandina, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York (2d Cir. 1973)
In re the Extradition of Gonzalez (District Court, S.D. New York 1963)
Marcos Perez Jimenez v. Manuel Aristeguieta, Intervenor, and John E. Maguire (5th Cir. 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for the discharge of the writ of habeas corpus and the remand of respondent to the custody of the United States Marshal in order that a hearing be held under 18 U. S. C. § 3184.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.