Morrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2017
24 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 Rideout v. United States · Loyd v. State · Holloway v. Florida · 180 Ind. App. 679 - Pillars v. State · State Ex Rel. O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar!)]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hurst · State v. Delph“[a] defendant has no duty to object to the setting of a belated trial date when the act of setting such date occurs after the time expires, such that the court cannot reset the trial date within the time allotted by the rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nance v. State · Gardner v. State“Furthermore, even where there is a failure to act which amounts to a waiver [e.g., failing to object to the November 1987 trial date], such event cannot be characterized as a delay. If within the allotted time a trial court acts to schedule a trial beyond the deadline then existing such that the defendant's failure to object would amount to a waiver of his claim that such trial dates were beyond the time limit, State ex rel. Henson [v. Washington Circuit Court (1987), Ind.,] 514 N.E.2d 838 , the period embraced by these dates is not properly considered to be an inclusive time period chargeable to the defendant as delay. [The delay] ... is not attributable to the defendant, although as discussed below, his failure to object to the setting of the ... trial date waives any objection that such date is beyond the time allowed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods 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.