Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 U.S. 307 - United States v. Marion

United States v. Marion’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

7,408
cited by 7,408 later decisions
65
cited 65 times by the Supreme Court
49
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

2,326 federal appellate · 307 district · 3,572 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7,408 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Barker v. Wingo (1972), Bell v. Wolfish (1979)

2,326 federal appellate · 307 district · 3,572 state decisions — followed in 49 states

2.2k0197119801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Hoffa v. United States

Cited together with United States v. Lovasco · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Ewell · United States v. MacDonald · Glasser 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 7,408 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]t is either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge that engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.”
    376 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Appellees rely solely on the real possibility of prejudice inherent in any extended delay: that memories will dim, witnesses become inaccessible, and evidence be lost. In light of the applicable statute of limitations, however, these possibilities are not in themselves enough to demonstrate that appellees cannot receive a fair trial and to therefore justify the dismissal of the indictment.”
    63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If there is unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to a grand jury or in filing an information against a defendant who has been held to answer to the district court, or if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint.”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.