Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 451 N.J. Super. 474 - State v. Forchion

451 N.J. Super. 474 - State v. Forchion’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Henderson v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Alford v. United States · Williams 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An eligible defendant who has been indicted shall not remain detained in jail for more than 180 days on that charge following the return or unsealing of the indictment, whichever is later, not counting excludable time for reasonable delays as set forth in subsection b. of the section, before commencement of the trial. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:162-22(a)(2)(a).]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “analogous federal statute for guidance in interpreting the speedy trial provisions of the CJRA.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In contrast, we apply a deferential standard of review to the fact-finding concerning the amount of excludable time. Thus, we will not disturb the trial court's findings as to the amount of excludable time so long as those findings are supported by 'sufficient credible evidence in the record.'”
    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.