Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 374 F.2d 312 - Mathies v. United States

Mathies v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

374 F.2d 312 · 1967

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
8
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. Lemonakis (1973), Hodges v. United States (1969)

38 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

310196719701980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Mallory v. United States · 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““This is not a case where prejudice may be spelled out from restraint on liberty for an unreasonable period of time before trial. Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff’d per curiam, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L. Ed. 761 (1955). Nor is the length of time involved such as to show that the delay was ‘arbitrary, purposeful, oppressive, or vexatious,’ * * * ” Mathies v. United States, supra 374 F.2d at 315 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “places a stricter requirement of speed on the prosecution, and permits dismissal of an indictment even though there has been no constitutional violation. [citations].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The prospective application of Miranda . . plainly will require that such interviews [between the police and an unindicted defendant who had retained counsel] can be conducted only after counsel has been given an opportunity to be present.”
    1 later decision 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.