Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 MDAPP 592 - Nottingham v. State

Nottingham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Barker v. Wingo · Kotteakos v. United States · Neder v. United States

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

  1. “None of these factors is, in itself, either necessary or sufficient to find a violation of the speedy trial right; instead, 'they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.' " Nottingham , 227 Md. App. at 613 , 135 A.3d 541 (quoting Barker , 407 U.S. at 533 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ). A. Length of Delay Unless "there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[S]o long as the State acted in good faith, the nolle prosequi terminates the original prosecution, and the speedy trial clock starts anew from the date of the filing of the new charging document.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “absent a misstatement of law or conduct inconsistent with the law, a trial judge is presumed to know the law and apply it properly”
    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.