Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 Mont. 372 - State v. Keller

State v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably State v. Ariegwe (2007), State v. McKenzie (1980)

34 state decisions

1601976198019902000decided

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)

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Dickey v. Florida · Strunk v. United States · State v. Jensen

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

  1. “[The sheriff] attempted to remove the taint of illegality by a consent form signed by defendant four days later that does not purport to be retroactive. Defendant's signature was obtained after search of the truck while defendant was held in jail in the absence of counsel. Material obtained from this truck was the subject of the laboratory test and was introduced in evidence over defendant's objection. This material was illegally obtained, and its admission in evidence and the expert testimony and laboratory tests concerning it was prejudicial error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Length of delay; (2) Reason for delay; (3) Assertion of the right by defendant; and (4) Prejudice to the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . Delayed criminal justice proceedings are undermining public confidence in the system itself. Justice delayed may not only be justice denied but justice brought seriously under question. The backbone of law enforcement and the justice system is public support. The courts must not permit the erosion of that support by permitting unnecessary delay between charge and conviction or release.” 170 Mont. at 382, 553 P.2d at 1019 .”
    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.