Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 W. Va. 54 - State v. Foddrell

171 W. Va. 54 - State v. Foddrell’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2016

24 state decisions

1001982199020002010decided

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

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 153 W. Va. 159 - State Ex Rel. Farley v. Kramer · 159 W. Va. 292 - State Ex Rel. Stines v. Locke · 162 W. Va. 915 - State v. Cox · 165 W. Va. 540 - State v. Foddrell

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

  1. “A determination of whether a defendant has been denied a trial without unreasonable delay requires consideration of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. The balancing of the conduct of the defendant against the conduct of the State should be made on a case-by-case basis and no one factor is either necessary or sufficient to support a finding that the defendant has been denied a speedy trial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““1. The right to a trial without unreasonable delay is basic in the administration of criminal justice and is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitution. U.S. Const.Amend. VI; W.Va. Const., Art. 3, § 14. “2. A determination of whether a defendant has been denied a trial without unreasonable delay requires consideration of four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to. the defendant. The balancing of the conduct of the defendant against the conduct of the State should be made on a case-by-case basis and no one factor is either necessary or sufficient to support a finding that the defendant has been denied a speedy trial.””
    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.