Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Kaiser v. New York

• 1968 • 394 U.S. 280 • Warren Court
In the case of Kaiser v. New York (1968), the United States Supreme Court dealt with an issue related to extradition and due process rights. The petitioner, Albert Kaiser, was arrested in New York on a governor's warrant seeking his extradition to Pennsylvania for crimes allegedly committed there. He challenged this arrest arguing that he had not been in Pennsylvania at the time of the alleged crime and thus could not be extradited under federal law or constitutionally subjected to criminal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1968
Docket: 62
394 U.S. 280
89 S. Ct. 1044
22 L. Ed. 2d 274
1969 U.S. LEXIS 2160
Argued: Jan 16, 1969

Kaiser v. New York

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Kaiser v. New York (1968), the United States Supreme Court dealt with an issue related to extradition and due process rights. The petitioner, Albert Kaiser, was arrested in New York on a governor's warrant seeking his extradition to Pennsylvania for crimes allegedly committed there. He challenged this arrest arguing that he had not been in Pennsylvania at the time of the alleged crime and thus could not be extradited under federal law or constitutionally subjected to criminal prosecution there. However, both state courts denied relief without holding evidentiary hearings on his claim. The U.S Supreme Court held that when a person arrested on a governor's warrant challenges their arrest by claiming they were not present in the demanding state at the time of crime, then before being extradited they are entitled to have an opportunity for a hearing on this question if they can provide clear evidence supporting their claim which is material and goes beyond mere denial. This decision emphasized that while states have broad powers regarding interstate rendition matters, these powers must still respect individual constitutional protections such as due process rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Kaiser v. New York, 1968, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring compulsory arbitration in labor disputes involving public employees violated federal labor laws and infringed upon workers' rights to strike. The dissenters contended that such mandatory arbitration interferes with free collective bargaining by imposing an external solution on parties who should be allowed to negotiate their own terms of employment. They also expressed concern about the potential for bias in arbitrators chosen by government entities involved in these disputes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that preventing strikes is a sufficient justification for this intrusion into labor relations, arguing instead that strikes are an essential tool for workers seeking fair treatment from employers.

Opinion written by Justice PStewart
Decided: Mar 24, 1969
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms