United States v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.3d 4 · 1998
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 26 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Scott (2001), United States v. Balsam (2000)
26 federal appellate · 26 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life · Fertel-Rust v. Dane County Social Services · Henderson v. United States · United States v. Taylor · Jusino v. Brown
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to— (F) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion; (J) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court. (8)(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the fair and efficient administration of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because a motion requesting only the scheduling of a status conference requires no “hearing”—marked by oral argument, factual findings, or legal rulings—but involves merely the simple administrative act of setting a date, it must be resolved within 30 days of the date the Court has received all it expects to properly consider the request. It follows that such a motion is resolved as soon as the conference is actually scheduled—not when the various matters for possible discussion, in fact, are broached—and that the clock will start again the following day____Because the setting of the date resolves the motion in its entirety, the conference cannot possibly represent a “hearing on ... such motion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(F).”
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.