Reece v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.2d 852 · 1964
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006
10 federal appellate · 4 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. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pollard v. United States · Goss v. Board of Education · Beavers v. Haubert · Harlow v. United States · Harris v. Florida Real Estate Commission
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Sixth Amendment affords every defendant in a criminal case the right to a speedy trial. This right is not so absolute or unqualified that it admits of no delay. ‘The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.’ Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 87 , 25 S.Ct. 573, 576 , 49 L.Ed. 950 . It is designed to protect a defendant from purposeful and oppressive delays. Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361 , 77 S.Ct. 481 , 1 L.Ed.2d 393 . Davidson v. United States, 8th Cir., 1963, 312 F.2d 163, 167 . Clearly, the deprivation of the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is not proven by mere reference to periods of time.” Reece v. United States, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The delay complained of was not so prolonged as to be per se unreasonable; nor has there been any suggestion that the delay was purposeful or oppressive or that it adversely affected (defendant’s) defense or his opportunity to prepare a defense. * * *””
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.