Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 468 F.2d 677 - Arrant v. Wainwright

Arrant v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

468 F.2d 677 · 1972

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
3
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably United States v. Avalos (1976), Epps v. State (1975)

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

2601972198019902000decided

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 · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · 234 So. 2d 167 - Arrant v. State

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

  1. “* * * The state attorney who handled this case quite candidly stated to the district court under oath that he kept putting off trial because he “did not want to see him [appellant] be acquitted of this crime.” Thus, this is the only viable excuse for the delay that this court will accept for the period after October 16, 1967. Needless to say, this Court finds this asserted justification extremely unsatisfactory and will weigh this element heavily in the ultimate determination of appellant’s claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The allegation is clearly that appellant was denied the testimony of an admitted eyewitness to the killing because of the affirmative and highly questionable actions taken by the state attorney during the period that appellant’s trial was delayed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]t is clear that the state was unwilling to proceed against appellant until [the exculpatory witness] was completely removed as a possible witness for appellant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.