Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 407 U.S. 514 - Barker v. Wingo

Barker v. Wingo’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

19,141
cited by 19,141 later decisions
122
cited 122 times by the Supreme Court
50
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

3,615 federal appellate · 533 district · 11,765 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19,141 later decisions (122 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Wainwright v. Sykes (1977)

3,615 federal appellate · 533 district · 11,765 state decisions — followed in 50 states

4.0k0197219801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBarker v. Wingo (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Marion

Cited together with United States v. Marion · Smith v. Hooey · Doggett v. United States · United States v. Lovasco · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina

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 19,141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.”
    1,108 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”
    125 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[I]nordinate delay between public charge and trial ... wholly aside from possible prejudice to a defense on the merits, may “seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty, whether he is free on bad or not, and ... may disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends.””
    48 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.