United States v. Rabb’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.2d 294 · 1982
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. Berry (1996), United States v. Samples (1983)
20 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 2114 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3288 · 18 U.S.C. § 3331 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Bass · Richards v. United States · Ball v. United States · Markham v. Cabell
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny ... indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Recognizing that § 3161(b) is essentially a congressional directive for the orderly conduct of criminal proceedings, we have not been convinced that Congress intended its bar to apply to superseding indictments made necessary by the type of defect present here. Cf. United States v. Wilks, 629 F.2d 669 (10th Cir.1980) (§ 3161(b) time limitations do not apply to superseding indictments generally); see also United States v. Budzyna, 666 F.2d 666 (1st Cir.1981) (holding that date of original indictment, not that of superseding indictment, controls for purpose of determining whether Speedy Trial Act sanctions apply.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.”
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.