Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 405 A2D 706 - State v. Cunningham

State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
4
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2008

7 state decisions

701979198019902000decided

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 · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Pollard v. United States · Dickey v. Florida · Pauling v. McElroy

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A holding that the speedy trial guarantees of Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution encompass the right to speedy sentence is not necessary to sustain the result here. As defendant points out, an unreasonable delay in sentencing is a violation of due process, for “justice delayed is justice denied.” * * * The “without unreasonable delay” provision of Criminal Rule 32(a) implements this constitutional standard. Thus, regardless of the application of the speedy trial right, a delay in sentencing which is unreasonable violates the Rule and deprives the defendant of due process of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(b) Dismissal by Court. If there is unnecessary delay ... in bringing a defendant to trial, the Court may dismiss the indictment ...””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.