Commonwealth v. Carrillo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

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

1. “Other jurisdictions which have adopted the Agreement on Detainers are divided on the question whether the one hundred eighty day period begins on the date (a) on which the defendant requests the warden of the institution in which he is confined to forward the necessary papers (Beebe v. State, 346 A.2d 169, 171 [Del. 1975]), (b) on which the papers are actually mailed (State v. Wood, 241 N.W.2d 8, 11-13 [Iowa 1976]), or (c) on which the authorities in the other state receive the request for prompt disposition (Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 104-105 , 301 A.2d 605 [1973]). See Davidson v. State, 18 Md.App. 61, 67 , 305 A.2d 474 (1972), cert. den. 269 Md. 757 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith

2. “held not good cause because civil cases should be continued so that IAD cases are timely) 9 Brown argues that the 180 days began to run when he delivered his request to the Maryland authorities on January 13. Art. III(a) of the IAD provides that a prisoner shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court ... written notice ... and request for a final disposition .... Jurisdictions are divided on whether the date prisoner”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Wolff

3. “necessary and reasonable in light of scheduling difficulties”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Wolff