State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
326 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 326 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Underwood (2010), State v. Homan (2000)
326 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 State v. Pudlock · State v. Bonarrigo
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 326 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen an accused waives the right to a speedy trial as to an initial charge, this waiver is not applicable to additional charges arising from the same set of circumstances that are brought subsequent to the execution of the waiver.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The General Assembly has chosen to enforce the speedy trial statutes by providing an accused with a right to dismissal of charges upon timely motion, when not accorded trial within the statutory time. It was not the General Assembly’s sole purpose in enacting the speedy trial statutes to reward those accused of criminal conduct for a prosecutor’s lack of diligence. Concededly, an accused has a valid interest in, and an independent constitutional right to, a speedy trial. However, in construing the speedy trial statutes, this court also recognizes the public’s interests not only in the prompt adjudication of criminal cases, but also in obtaining convictions of persons who have committed criminal offenses against the state. Consistent with these interests, we hold that, where a prosecutor obtains a felony indictment, based upon the same conduct as was a previously nolled, lesser-included misdemeanor charge, the time within which the accused shall be brought to trial pursuant to [the Ohio speedy trial act] consists of whatever residue remains from the 270-day period [required for trial in a felony case] after deducting the speedy trial time expended prior to the nolle prosequi. Such a holding adequately protects the accused’s statutory rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Sumstine
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.