Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 S.W.2d 742 - Easley v. State

Easley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
3
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably McDuff v. State (1997), Emery v. State (1994)

2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

32019781980199020002010decided

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 · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Ewell · Smith v. Hooey

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

  1. “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of the right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is not necessary ... that every fact point directly and independently to the guilt of the accused, and the cumulative force of all the incriminating circum stances may be sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt.”
    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.