Bauhaus v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably 40 Cal. 3d 239 - Serna v. Superior Court (1985), Cooper v. State (1983)
3 federal appellate · 32 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 Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida · Moore v. Arizona
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The approach we accept is a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. `A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. We can do little more than identify some of the factors... . Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant... .'"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Bjecause of the imprecision of the right to speedy trial, the length of delay that will provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. . . “Closely related to length of delay is the reason the government assigns to justify the delay. Here, too, different weights should be assigned to different reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighed heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighed less heavily [against the government] . . . Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.” ( 407 U.S. 530 and 531, 92 S.Ct. 2192 , footnotes omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodgers v. State““ . . . Prejudice, of course, should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. This Court has identified three such interests: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to lim it the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. . . . ( 407 U.S. 532 , 92 S.Ct. 2193 , footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodgers v. State
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.