Remick v. Lopes’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Wheway v. Warden (1990), 238 Ill. 2d 262 - Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency (2010)
29 state decisions
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 United States v. Mauro · Bowsher v. Merck & Co. · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Cuyler v. Adams · Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After lodging the detainer an appropriate officer of the demanding state may make a written request for temporary custody of the prisoner for the purpose of trying these indictments, informations, or complaints that form the basis of the detainer.... Unless the governor of the asylum state disapproves the request for temporary custody within thirty days of its filing, the demanding state shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom [it] has lodged a detainer.... Once a detainer has been filed against a prisoner, custodial officials must promptly notify the prisoner of the source and contents of the detainer and of the prisoner's right to request a final disposition of the foreign charge; General Statutes § 54-186, art. III (c); the prisoner, upon notifying prosecuting officials in the demanding state of his or her request for a final disposition of the charge, must be brought to trial within 180 days of the request; General Statutes § 54-186, art. III (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Remick v. Lopes , 203 Conn. 494 , 505 , 525 A.2d 502 (1987), citing Williams v. State of Maryland , 445 F. Sup. 1216 , 1220 (D. Md. 1978); Gray v. Benson , 443 F. Sup. 1284 , 1286 (D. Kan. 1978); Beebe v. Vaughn , 430 F. Sup. 1220 , 1223-24 (D. Del. 1977); People v. Uplinger , 69 Ill.2d 181 , 183 , 370 N.E.2d 1054 (1977). The petitioner claims that he”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The provisions of the [IAD] are activated only when the receiving or charging state lodges with the sending or asylum state a detainer based on a pending indictment, information or complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.