Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 587 F.2d 397 - Camp v. United States

Camp v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

587 F.2d 397 · 1978

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
19
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Spence v. Reeder (1981), O'Leary v. United States (1988)

41 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 19 states

470197819801990200020102020decided

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. § 2114 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Wainwright v. Sykes · Brady v. United States · McMann v. Richardson · Tollett v. Henderson

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

  1. “If Article V(e) is violated and the indictment therefore loses its “force or effect,” the condition precedent is unsatisfied and the prosecution is technically precluded from proceeding further. The sanction of dismissal with prejudice contained in Article IV(e), then, is a relatively severe sanction designed to compel prosecutorial compliance with the procedures set forth in the IAD[A]. It is, however, a sanction without effect on the jurisdiction of the district court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““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 . . . 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.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects or errors.”
    2 later decisions 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.