10 Neb. Ct. App. 793 - State v. Dailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and hearing on competency and the period during which he is incompetent to stand trial; the time from filing until final disposition of pretrial motions of the defendant, including motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement and motions for a change of venue; and the time consumed in the trial of other charges against the defendant; (b) The period of delay resulting from a continuance granted at the request or with the consent of the defendant or his counsel. A defendant without counsel shall not be deemed to have consented to a continuance unless he has been advised by the court of his right to a speedy trial and the effect of his consent; (c) The period of delay resulting from a continuance granted at the request of the prosecuting attorney, if: (i) The continuance is granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the state’s case, when the prosecuting attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will be available at the later date; or (ii) The continuance is granted to allow the prosecuting attorney additional time to prepare the state’s case and additional time is justified because of the exceptional circumstances of the case; (d) The period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailab”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Neb. Ct. App. 32 - State v. Droz · 13 Neb. Ct. App. 321 - State v. Schmader

2. “When a defendant has sought and obtained an indefinite continuance, it is his or her affirmative duty to end the continuance by giving notice of request for trial, as outlined in [State v.] Andersen, [ 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989)]. Otherwise, the court can end the continuance by setting a trial date or specifically ordering that the continuance has ended.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 13 Neb. Ct. App. 321 - State v. Schmader