United States v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably Barker v. Wingo (1972), Dickey v. Florida (1970)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Glasser v. United States · Holland v. United States · Spies v. United States · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Ewell
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prejudice may fairly be presumed simply because everyone knows that memories fade, evidence is lost, and the burden of anxiety upon any criminal defendant increases with the passing months and years.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Walker · State v. Otero““If there is unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to a grand jury or in filing an information against a defendant who has been held to answer to the district court, or if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The interests in maximum speed consistent with fairness, in fresh memories likely to approach full accounts of the facts, in prompt vindication and relief of the innocent, and in swift punishment of the guilty — such concerns are matters of broad public moment quite transcending the balance of personal advantage that understandably guides the steps of the individual defendant. It is commonly understood that the defendant will hesitate to disturb the hushed inaction by which dormant cases have been known to expire. [cases cited] There is no comparable ground — at least no justification — for ambivalence- in the prosecutor’s office about performance of the unquestioned duty to implement the right to a speedy trial.” 291 F.Supp. at 274-275 .”
2 later decisions 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.