State v. Ariegwe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

250 state decisions

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

1. “No one factor is dispositive by itself; rather, the factors are related and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kurtz · State v. Snider

2. “The significance of this ... determination is twofold. First, the presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time. Thus, the further the delay stretches beyond the trigger date, the stronger is the presumption under Factor Four that the accused has been prejudiced by the delay. Second, the State’s burden under Factor Two to justify the delay likewise increases with the length of the delay. Thus, the further the delay stretches beyond the 200-day trigger date, the more compelling the State’s justifications for the delay must be under Factor Two.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. James Hendershot

3. “factor, the District Court observed that under Ariegwe , once a delay exceeds 200 days, the presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused intensifies over time. Concluding that this case lasted 432 days— 232 days beyond the threshold 200 days—the court ruled that the State's burden to prove that Hardaway was not prejudiced was heightened, and Hardaway's burden to prove that he was prejudiced was diminished. ¶ 10 The court then considered the second factor—”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hardaway