Sassoon v. Stynchombe’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 371 · 1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably United States v. Johnson (1992), Taylor v. United States (1992)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Angrist v. United States · Cuyler v. Adams · Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`This court declines to apply [Article IV(e) of the IAD] mechanically contrary to the stated purposes of the [IAD] because such an application would be based upon a construction of the [IAD] against, rather than in behalf of, the legitimate interest of Sassoon in receiving rehabilitative education while in federal custody. On the facts of the present case, Clayton County's keeping Sassoon for trial, rather than returning him immediately after arraignment, would have interfered with Sassoon's legitimate interest in participating in the program of rehabilitation in which he was enrolled. A brief removal of a prisoner to the receiving jurisdiction and his prompt return to the sending jurisdiction after arraignment and prior to trial [are] consonant with the intention of the [IAD].'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If trial is not had on any indictment ... prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to Article V(e) hereof, such indictment ... shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`a primary purpose of the [IAD] is to protect prisoners against whom detainers are outstanding[,]'... [and that] [n]o protection is necessary where no injury is threatened.”
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.