Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 692 F.2d 1352 - United States v. Varella

United States v. Varella’s Empirical Analysis

692 F.2d 1352 · 1982

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
10
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

92 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Thomas (1985), United States v. Lewis (1985)

92 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states

8301982199020002010decided

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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Roviaro v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Alford v. United States · United States v. MacDonald

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

  1. “Congress recognized the utility of multi-defendant trials to effectuate the prompt efficient disposition of criminal justice. It felt that the efficiency and economy of joint trials far outweighed the desirability of granting a severance where the criterion was simply the passage of time.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[T]he purpose of the provision is to make sure that [the Speedy Trial Act] does not alter the present rules on severance of codefendants by forcing the Government to prosecute the first defendant separately or to be subject to a speedy trial dismissal motion under section 3162.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(a)(2) If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) as extended by section 3161(h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.