State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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

1. “shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice ... of his request (emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jenkins · State v. DELONG

2. “§ 217.450— 1. Any person confined in a state correctional institution may request a final disposition of any untried indictment, information or complaint pending in this state against him while so imprisoned. The request shall be in writing addressed to the court in which the indictment, information or complaint is pending and to the prosecuting attorney charged with the duty of prosecuting it, and shall set forth the place of imprisonment. § 217.455— The request shall be delivered to the division director, who shall forthwith: (1) Certify the term of commitment under which the inmate is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the time of parole eligibility of the inmate, and any decisions of the state board of probation and parole relating to the inmate; and (2) Send by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, one copy of the request and certificate to the court and one copy to the prosecuting attorney to whom it is addressed. § 217.460— Within one hundred eighty days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and the prosecuting attorney or within such additional necessary or reasonable time as the court may grant, for good cause shown in open court, the inmate or his counsel being present, the indictment, information or complaint shall be brought to trial. The parties may stipulate for a continuance or a continuance may be granted if notice is given to the attorney of record with an opportunity”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. White

3. “The state relies upon Pethtel v. State, 427 N.E.2d 891 (Ind.App.1981). In that case, four weeks before the expiration of the period of limitation, with defendant and counsel present, the court set the case for trial after the expiration of that period. The court followed the rule applicable to the speedy trial act of that state. That rule was declared to be “a defendant is not entitled to discharge where he has notice a trial will be set beyond the time period permitted by the Rule and yet does not object ‘at a time when the court could ... grant him a trial date within the proper period.”’ Pethtel v. State, supra, at 894.... It is not necessary for this court to accept or reject the doctrine of Pethtel . The docket call that resulted in the trial setting of April 11, 1988, was not held until well after the 180-day period of limitation had expired.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Overton