United States v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.2d 38 · 1981
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably United States v. Lindstrom (1983), United States v. Mills (1983)
40 federal appellate · 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1644 (§ 134 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · Smith v. Hooey
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(s)tatutes of limitation provide the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 789, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2048, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). Thus, preindictment delay rarely constitutes grounds for dismissal. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal only when the delay 'caused substantial prejudice to (defendant's) rights to a fair trial and ... was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused.' United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 324, 92 S.Ct. 455, 465, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); United States v. Nixon, 634 F.2d 306 , 310 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Ramos, 586 F.2d 1078 , 1079 (5th Cir. 1978)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial arises when a person becomes ‘accused’ by either indictment, information, or arrest. The [state] arrest..., however, did not ‘accuse’ appellant for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial in a subsequent federal prosecution. To hold otherwise would force federal indictments of state arrestees and stand inconsistent with the doctrine of dual sovereignty that recognizes the validity of successive state and federal prosecutions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the attorney for the Government knows that a person charged with an offense is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, he shall promptly— (A) undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial; or (B) cause a detainer to be filed with the person having custody of the prisoner and request him to so advise the prisoner and advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.”
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.