State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2015
12 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 Santoni v. United States · State v. Barnes · Pittman v. State · 21 Ariz. App. 388 - Rockmore v. State · Ekis v. Darr
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the prisoner makes a good faith effort to bring himself within the Agreement's purview, and omits nothing essential to the Agreement's operation, then his failure of strict compliance will not deprive him of its benefits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case sub judice, Roberts substantially complied with section 941.45(3) by sending the documents which were received by the state attorney’s office on December 15, 1980. These documents informed the Pasco County officials which charges were at issue, notified them of Roberts’ current place of incarceration, requested final disposition of the charges pursuant to the IADA, and waived extradition. The memorandum from the New York prison officials to Roberts, which RobeHs sent to the Pasco officials, contained the information which is usually supplied in a certificate of inmate status. We note that Pasco County had the necessary information required to process the detainer charges; also, the appropriate Florida court received a copy of the documents sent to the Pasco County prosecutor. Therefore, as both the prosecutor and the appropriate court had actual notice of the necessary information, they should have been aware that the 180-day time period had started running. This time period was not tolled by the August 1981 motion by Roberts for continuance; the time limit had already expired.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As Roberts was not brought to Florida until July 15, 1981, more than 180 days after section 941.45 was invoked, the circuit court's dismissal of the two informations was proper.”
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.