Shirley v. North Carolina’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 819 · 1975
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), Gandy v. Alabama (1978)
24 federal appellate · 2 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 Ungar v. Sarafite
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the matter of a continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel .... Contrariwise, a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for a delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied, (citations omitted) (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so arbitrary and so fundamentally unfair as to invoke the Constitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is grounded in precedent, tradition and common sense.”
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.