Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 Md. 157 - State v. Pair

State v. Pair’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)

Relies on Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co.

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

  1. “The interstate transfer process begins when the “receiving” state lodges a detainer with the warden “or other official” of the institution where the prisoner in question is currently imprisoned, in what is referred to as the custodial or “sending” state. See § 8-405(b). The warden or other authority in the sending state is then obligated to inform the inmate of the detainer’s source and contents, and of the inmate’s right, under the IAD, to request final disposition of the charges on which the detainer is based. See § 8-405(c). To exercise the right of speedy disposition, the inmate must file a request for IAD relief with the warden, who must forward the request to appropriate authorities in the receiving state. See § 8-405(d). This document operates as a request by the prisoner for final disposition of all untried charges underlying the detainer and is deemed to be a waiver of extradition. See § 8-405(d); Mauro, 436 U.S. at 351 [ 98 S.Ct. 1834 ]. Once the receiving state receives the request, the IAD requires that jurisdiction to bring the prisoner to trial within 180 days, unless one of two provisions of the IAD is invoked. 7 ... If neither of these tolling provisions is properly invoked, then the receiving state’s failure to comply with the 180-day provision requires dismissal of the charges, with prejudice. See § 8-407(e).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, the prisoner shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the prisoner shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment and the prisoner’s request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint;....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of the person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in § 8-405 or § 8-406 of this subtitle (Article III or IV of the Agreement), the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information, or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detainer based on the indictment, information, or complaint shall cease to be of any force or effect.”
    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.