United States v. Sorrell’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 227 · 1977
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2007 · most notably United States v. Mauro (1978), United States v. Williams (1980)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 4002 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Daniel v. Louisiana · United States v. Ford · United States of America Ex Rel. Frank Esola, 53517 v. Ronald M. Groomes, Superintendent · United States v. Scallion
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The basic statutory framework of the Detainer Agreement has been summarized in United States ex rel. Esola v. Groomes, 520 F.2d 830, 833-34 (3d Cir. 1975), and need not be described here. See also United States v. Ford, 550 F.2d 732, 737-41 (2d Cir. 1977). However, the legislative purpose in adopting this statute is specifically set forth in Article I, which is designed ‘[t]o implement the right to a speedy trial and to minimize the interference with a prisoner’s treatment and rehabilitation,’ Esola, supra at 833 , as follows: ‘The party States find that charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is the policy of the party States and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. The party States also find that proceedings with reference to such charges and detainers, while emanating from another jurisdiction, cannot properly be had in the absence of cooperative procedures. It is the further purpose of this agreement to provide such cooperative procedures.’ ” United States v. Sorrell, supra, at pages 229-230, Part II of 562 F.2d. “As noted u”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to Article V(e) hereof, such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[statements from . . . nonofficial sources having no special connection with the preparation and proposal of a bill are not generally considered for interpretation purposes.”
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.