United States v. Little’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 346 · 1977
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States v. Alvarez (1988), United States v. Pang (2004)
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 · Ungar v. Sarafite · Ohio v. Kentucky · Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie · Kirby v. Illinois
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the nature of the case and whether the parties have been allowed adequate timing for trial preparation; (2) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (3) the conduct of the opposing party and whether a lack of cooperation has contributed to the need for a continuance; (4) the effect of the continuance and whether a delay will seriously disadvantage either party; and (5) the asserted need for the continuance, with weight to be given to sudden exigencies and unforeseen circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Because Little failed to move for dismissal prior to trial, he waived any right to the sanction of dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2)(Supp. V 1975). We also find that he waived his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. While the record is somewhat confused, it does indicate that both he and Vaughn expressly waived their right to a speedy trial while the case remained pending in Texas. Subsequent to the transfer to the Western District of Arkansas, both Little and Vaughn sought and were granted a continuance. They then sought another continuance just pri- or to the beginning of their trial, which was denied.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. State“the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.”
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.