Mann v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
304 F.2d 394 · 1962
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 14 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2013 · most notably Dickey v. Florida (1970), United States v. Stricklin (1979)
73 federal appellate · 14 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 17 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pollard v. United States · Williams v. United States · Beavers v. Haubert · Carroll 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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The dismissal here was not compelled by the Speedy Trial Clause. Appellant was promptly indicted, within five weeks after the crime, and only seven months more had passed when the Court dismissed the indictment. At that, most of the delay was of his own making. Certainly, in these circumstances, the one week continuance obtained by the government did not work a deprivation of constitutional rights. Nor would a reasonable further delay. The trial judge acted, not under constitutional compulsion, but, on the government’s suggestion, out of concern for the accused who remained incarcerated, presumably because he could not meet his bond. And the Court clearly expressed its intent to award the dismissal without prejudice to further prosecution should the government later uncover the missing evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The accused cannot complain because a liberal application of the Rule [48] earns him temporary freedom, without according him full immunity from prosecution. 15 At most, he is entitled to know whether the sword of Damocles still hangs over him. If the dismissal is granted pursuant to a finding that the Speedy Trial Clause has been violated, the court should expressly dismiss with prejudice. Otherwise, the dismissal should note that it is awarded without prejudice to prosecution on a new indictment or information. Here the required warning was given, 16 and, under the facts, it was clearly a proper ruling. The conviction, the sentence, and the order denying the motion to vacate sentence are accordingly”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“clearly expressed its intent to award the dismissal without prejudice to further prosecution should the government later uncover the missing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hilbert v. Dooling
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.