Strunk v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
329 federal appellate · 40 district · 590 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,134 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft (1978), Moody v. Daggett (1976)
329 federal appellate · 40 district · 590 state decisions — followed in 41 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Strunk (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Ewell · Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida
Cited together with Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Smith v. Hooey · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Moore v. Arizona
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 1,134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nintentional delays caused by overcrowded court dockets or understaffed prosecutors”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The speedy trial guarantee recognizes that a prolonged delay may subject the accused to an emotional stress that can be presumed to result in the ordinary person from uncertainties in the prospect of facing public trial or of receiving a sentence longer than, or consecutive to, the one he is presently serving — uncertainties that a prompt trial removes.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Superior Court of Arizona is one Court, and the individual Judges thereof do not have appellate jurisdiction one over the other. The Court considers this cause, CR 81137, and cause C 256124 as essentially one and the same. As was clearly recognized in this Court’s Order of April 18, 1974, (C 256124), one Judge should not ‘reverse’ the Order of a prior Judge or chaos would result and the strength of the law would fail. “As was decided by this Court on April 18, 1974, the Defendant’s ‘right to speedy trial was clearly violated.’ The Supreme Court of the United States, recognizing that ‘it means that a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free without having been tried,’ has in this situation mandated ‘the only possible remedy,’ even though it be an ‘unsatis factorily severe remedy.’ Barker and Strunk, supra.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ruffin v. State · State v. Keller
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.