Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 N.M. 801 - State v. Tartaglia

State v. Tartaglia’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Arizona v. Youngblood · United States v. Ewell · Smith v. Hooey

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]f “presumptive prejudice” meant “probable prejudice,” then a court would not start to apply Barkers four-factor analysis until it had determined that the delay was sufficiently long that the defendant probably suffered substantial prejudice. Such a result would excessively limit the application of the right to a speedy trial. After all, a defendant may have actually suffered prejudice even though the existence of prejudice would not be a probable result of the delay in itself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.