United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 940 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably United States v. Bermea (1994), United States v. Staula (1996)
42 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Lombard v. Marcera · Associated Grocers, Inc. v. Washington · Henderson v. United States · Herrmann v. United States · Scherl v. Fisher
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion”) (emphasis added); Un ited States v. Clark, 807 F.2d 412 , 414 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1986) (excluding delay resulting from an”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“general statements” that seemed to suggest that pretrial motions generally toll the speedy trial clock until they are ruled upon, but holding that because each of those cases could "be traced directly to cases in which the principles set forth in Henderson were strictly followed and properly applied to the facts of the case,” such "general statements” in cases like Welch “must be limited to the facts of [those] case[s], and viewed within the context of [the] principles set forth by Henderson.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As noted above, the defendant has the burden of providing adequate proof to support his motion to dismiss [for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.