295 So. 2d 279 - Page v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2010
23 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 Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · 219 So. 2d 673 - New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary v. Lacy · 279 So. 2d 599 - Clanton v. State · Wells v. State
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless the trial judge's discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to the accused, this Court will not reverse his ruling.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Burt v. State · Sewell v. State“"We now apply the four factors set out in Barker, supra , and Wells, supra . First, the length of the delay was slightly over a year from the time of the indictment until trial date. Second, the reason for the delay, as testified to by representatives of the state, was the inability of the state to locate the appellant. Third, as to the appellant's assertion pertaining to his right for a speedy trial, he voluntarily turned himself in to the sheriff in December 1972, less than five months prior to his trial, and failed to demand a speedy trial. As to the fourth factor, he argues that he was prejudiced by a loss of witnesses who could have testified in his favor, but the record does not substantiate that claim. Therefore, application of the balancing test of Barker, supra , to the circumstances shown by the record before us leads us to the conclusion that the appellant was not denied due process because of pre-indictment and pre-trial delays." 295 So.2d at page 281 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"A simple delay between the date of an offense and the date of an indictment is not per se reversible error especially where (as in this case) the delay is to conceal the identity of an undercover agent for a reasonable period of time so that he may continue to effectively work as such an agent. United States v. Judice, 457 F.2d 414 (5th Cir.1972)." 295 So.2d at 280 .”
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.