Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 NW2D 837 - State v. Davis

State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Monroe · State v. Schmitt · State v. Van Beek · State v. O'BRYAN

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

  1. “2. Speedy trial. It is the public policy of the state of Iowa that criminal prosecutions be concluded at the earliest possible time consistent with a fair trial to both parties. Applications for dismissals under this subsection may be made by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant or by the court on its own motion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Therefore, we overrule State v. Van Beek, 443 N.W.2d 704 (Iowa 1989), which held that rule 27(2)(a) is inapplicable in situations in which a defendant, who although arrested and briefly detained, is unconditionally released without formal charges being filed against the defendant in district court. See id. at 707 . Our ruling applies to this case, and prospectively to cases pending at the time this decision is filed and in which the issue resolved herein was raised. See State v. Monroe, 236 N.W.2d 24, 37 (Iowa 1975) (stating the constitution neither prohibits nor requires retroactive application of judicial decisions); see also 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts §§ 234 & 236, at 562-64 (1965 & Supp. 1994) (overruling judicial construction of a statute should, and overruling criminal decision may, be given prospective effect). The forty-five day period under rule 27(2)(a) runs from the date defendant is arrested, unless the state shows good cause for the late filing of the trial information or defendant waives the right to have it timely filed. It would take legislative action to effect a different starting date. We affirm the district court ruling that sustained defendant Davis' motion to dismiss the trial information because it was not filed within forty-five days after defendant was arrested on April 9 for commission of a’public offense. The dismissal is mandatory under rule 27(2)(a).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When an adult is arrested ... and an indictment is not found against him within forty-five days, the court must order the prosecution dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the defendant waives his right thereto.”
    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.