Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 F.2d 374 - Cain v. Smith

Cain v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

686 F.2d 374 · 1982

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
8
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Hill (1982), United States v. Schreane (2003)

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

32019821990200020102020decided

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 · Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Marion

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “identified four factors which are particularly probative in evaluating whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s asser tion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[T]he length of delay that will provoke ... an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The timeliness, vigor, and frequency with which the right to a speedy trial is asserted are probative indicators of whether a defendant was denied needed access to a speedy trial over his objection.”
    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.