State v. Lowry’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Swain v. State of Alabama (1965), State v. Fulcher (1978)
12 federal appellate · 135 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 Brown v. Allen · Rodriguez v. New York · Pollard v. United States · Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · Norris v. State of Alabama
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The word ‘kidnap,’ * * * as used in G.S. 14-39, means the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force and against his will (the common law definition). * * * It is the fact, not the distance of forcible removal of the victim that constitutes kidnapping.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The indictments are quashed and the verdict and judgments are vacated for want of valid indictments to support them. It does not follow that defendants are entitled to discharge and dismissal of the charges. If the State so elects it may send new bills and if they are returned true bills by an unexceptionable grand jury, defendants may be tried thereon for the offenses alleged.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right of a person formally accused of crime to a speedy and impartial trial has been guaranteed to Englishmen since Magna Carta, and the principle is embodied in the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and in some form is contained in our State Constitution and in that of most, if not all, of our sister states, or if not, in statutory provisions. S. v. Webb, 155 N.C. 426 , 70 S.E. 1064 . . . G.S. 15-10, entitled ‘Speedy trial or discharge on commitment for felony,’ requires simply that under certain circumstances ‘the prisoner be discharged from custody and not that he go quit of further prosecution.’ State v. Webb, supra. The Court said in Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77 , 49 L. Ed. 950 , 954: ‘The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.’ The constitutional right to a speedy trial is designed to prohibit arbitrary and oppressive delays which might be caused by the fault of the prosecution. Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 393 ; State v, Hadley, Mo., 249, S.W. 2d 857. The right to a speedy trial on the merits is not designed as a sword for defendant’s escape, but a shield for his protection.””
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.