Beal v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · 42 So. 3d 503 - Rowland v. State · 9 So. 3d 368 - Burrough v. State · United States v. Shaw
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment would require dismissal of the indictment if it were shown at trial that the pre-indictment delay in this case caused substantial prejudice to the defendant's rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused. To determine if actual prejudice has occurred, three factors should be considered: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the prejudice which the delay may have caused the accused.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the investigation was delayed because the victim was pregnant, and the State waited to indict until the baby was delivered and DNA tests could be performed to determine paternity.”
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.