Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 SW2D 407 - Hamilton v. State

Hamilton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2001

17 state decisions

150198119902000decided

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 Pate v. State · Fraire v. State · Clark v. State · Luckett v. State · Tatom 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In computing the time by which the state must be ready for trial, the following periods shall be excluded: (1) a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings involving the defendant, including but not limited to proceedings for the determination of competence to stand trial, hearing on pretrial motions, appeals, and trials of other charges; * * ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜: (5) a period of delay resulting from the unavailability of the defendant whose location is known to the state but whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence or because he resists being returned to the state for trial; (9) a period of delay resulting from detention of the defendant in another jurisdiction, if the state is aware of the detention and exercises due diligence to obtain his presence for trial; and (10) any other reasonable period of delay that is justified by exceptional circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(4) a period of delay resulting from the absence of the defendant because his location is unknown and: “(A) he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution; or “(B) the state has been unable to determine his location by due diligence;””
    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.