Beebe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 46 Ill. App. 3d 195 - People v. Daily (1977), Bailey v. State (1987)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Barker v. Wingo · Pittman v. State · Cunningham 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Pittman v. State, Del.Supr., 301 A.2d 509 (1973), this court held that strict compliance with the UAD [IAD] may not be required in a proper factual setting if it appears that a prisoner has taken diligent and reasonable efforts to invoke the time requirements, but is prevented from full compliance because of the failure of public officials. There is, however, as the Superior Court determined, a significant factor which distinguishes this case from Pittman ... It is one thing for an official having custody to refuse to process a request and thus leave the prisoner to communicate as best he can with the State which has lodged a detainer for him. That was Pittman . It is quite a different matter, however, when a prisoner simply ignores the official having custody of him and attempts to communicate directly with the requesting State. That is this ease and the difference from Pittman is significant and determinative.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“held not good cause because civil cases should be continued so that IAD cases are timely) 9 Brown argues that the 180 days began to run when he delivered his request to the Maryland authorities on January 13. Art. III(a) of the IAD provides that a prisoner shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court ... written notice ... and request for a final disposition .... Jurisdictions are divided on whether the date prisoner”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Wolff
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.