Howell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

cited by 30 later decisions

states following

November 2017

most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 511 So. 2d 526 - Rogers v. State (1987), Scott v. State (1991)

30 state decisions

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 · United States v. Marion · Mullaney v. Wilbur · United States v. Lovasco · Rubin 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[I]n evaluating an asserted due process violation based on pre-indictment delay, Lovasco and Marion require us “to consider both the reasons for the delay and the prejudice to the accused.” ... Further, the accused bears the burden of proving the prejudice and, if the threshold requirement of proof of actual prejudice is not met, the inquiry ends there.... Once actual prejudice is shown, it is necessary to engage “in a sensitive balancing of the government’s need for an investigative delay ... against the prejudice asserted by the defendant.” ... The inquiry turns on “whether the prosecution’s actions violated ‘fundamental conceptions of justice’ or the community’s sense of fair play and decency.” ... “Inherent in the adoption of a balancing process is the notion that particular reasons are to be weighed against the particular prejudice suffered on a case-by-case basis.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. 89 So. 3d 1132 - State v. Hope · 468 So. 2d 510 - King v. State
“Actual prejudice always includes material impairment of the defendant's capacity to prepare a defense and in some cases may encompass personal prejudice as distinguished from prejudice to the defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 36 - State v. Burch · 428 So. 2d 304 - Marrero v. State
“authority for the view that when the first three ... factors are heavily weighed in favor of the accused, the necessity for a demonstration of actual prejudice is not required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. 738 So. 2d 984 - Seymour v. State · 438 So. 2d 68 - State v. Roundtree

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.