Hayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2003
13 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge that engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. D.B. v. State · DB v. State“" '[T]he right to speedy trial is a more vague concept than other procedural rights. It is, for example, impossible to determine with precision when the right has been denied. We cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.' (Footnote omitted.) "Thus, an 'inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case. . . .' [ Barker , at 522 ] . . . 92 S.Ct. at 2188 . In adopting 'a balancing test, in *Page 64 which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed,' id. at 530 , 92 S.Ct. at 2192 , the Barker court identified 'some of the factors' which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial: (a) length of delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the defendant's assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant. Id. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason . . . should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason . . . should serve to justify appropriate delay.' 407 U.S. at 531 , 92 S.Ct. at 2192 (footnote omitted).”
2 later decisions 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.