Jenkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 637 So. 2d 871 - Perry v. State (1994), 616 So. 2d 298 - Noe v. State (1993)
27 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 · Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool & London & Globe Ins Co Limited · 550 So. 2d 406 - Smith v. State · 512 So. 2d 868 - Williamson v. State · 535 So. 2d 1371 - Vickery v. State
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he right to a speedy trial is subject to a knowing and intelligent waiver. Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1377. This Court will "indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of a constitutional right." Id., quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 393 , 57 S.Ct. 809, 812 , 81 L.Ed. 1177, 1180 (1937). Even when a defendant fails to assert his right to a speedy trial he does not permanently waive this right. Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1377.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here the defendant has not caused the delay and the State does not show good cause for that delay, this Court weighs this factor against the [State]. . . . [A]ny delay unintentionally caused by the State will not be weighed as heavily against the [State] as where the delay was intended to hurt the defendant's case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Prejudice is assessed in light of the interest of the defendant which the right to a speedy trial is designed to protect: 1) prevention of oppressive pre-trial incarceration 2) minimization of anxiety and concern of the accused and 3) limitation of the possibility of impairment of defense.”
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.