Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Little Vs. Ciuros

Little vs Ciuros

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1978
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104498

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
436 U.S. 1301
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Little

Respondent

Ciuros

Excerpt

little v. ciuros - 436 u.s. 1301 (1978) u.s. supreme court little v. ciuros , 436 u.s. 1301 (1978) 436 u.s. 1301 joan little v. william ciuros, jr., commissioner of correction of the city of new york and essie murph, superintendent of new york city correctional institution for women no. a-1007 supreme court of the united states june 7, 1978 further application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. mr. justice marshall, circuit justice. the application for a stay n this case was denied by the court on june 5, 1978. 436 u.s. 943. this new application is based on the following allegation: "following this court's denial on june 5, 1978, of petitioner's original application for the aforesaid stay, counsel for petitioner has been informed that the office of the attorney general of the state of north carolina has stated publicly that it intends to prosecute petitioner for the crime of escape upon her return to said jurisdiction." in support of this new application it is stated: "under the principle of specialty, a demanding country may not try an individual who has been extradicted [sic] for any offense other than that for which extradition was granted, unless the alleged offense was committed after extradition. united states v. rauscher, 119 u.s. 407 [] (1886)." it just so happens that united states v. rauscher was controlled by a treaty between the united states and great britain. needless to say, there is no treaty involved here. the application is, therefore, without legal support and is denied.[ little v. ciuros 436 u.s. 1301 (1978) ]

Full Judgment

LITTLE v. CIUROS - 436 U.S. 1301 (1978)
U.S. Supreme Court LITTLE v. CIUROS , 436 U.S. 1301 (1978)

436 U.S. 1301

Joan LITTLE
v.
William CIUROS, Jr., Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York and Essie Murph, Superintendent of New York City Correctional Institution for Women
No. A-1007

Supreme Court of the United States

June 7, 1978

Further application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL, Circuit Justice.

The application for a stay n this case was denied by the Court on June 5, 1978. 436 U.S. 943.

This new application is based on the following allegation:

"Following this Court's denial on June 5, 1978, of Petitioner's original application for the aforesaid stay, counsel for Petitioner has been informed that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has stated publicly that it intends to prosecute petitioner for the crime of escape upon her return to said jurisdiction."

In support of this new application it is stated:

"Under the principle of specialty, a demanding country may not try an individual who has been extradicted [sic] for any offense other than that for which extradition was granted, unless the alleged offense was committed after extradition. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 [] (1886)."

It just so happens that United States v. Rauscher was controlled by a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Needless to say, there is no treaty involved here.

The application is, therefore, without legal support and is Denied.[ Little v. Ciuros 436 U.S. 1301 (1978) ]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial