State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
February 2010
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Lovasco · Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc. · State v. Curtis · State v. Goltz
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the defendant has the burden to show that he has suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the delay. Then, if he has shown sufficient prejudice, we must weigh the reasons for the delay offered by the State, as well as the length of the delay, to determine whether the defendant’s rights have been denied. Throughout our analysis, we should be guided by the principle that a pre-indictment delay will lead to a violation of a defendant’s due process rights if it can be said that requiring the defendant to stand trial “violates those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions and which define the community’s sense of fair play and decency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Burt
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.