United States v. Caparella’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.2d 976 · 1983
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Taylor (1988), United States v. Pollock (1984)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1703 · 18 U.S.C. § 1709 · 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)
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance · United States v. Iaquinta · United States v. Hillegas
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Above all, the fact is that Congress explicitly and affirmatively decided to make dismissal without prejudice one of the sanctions for violation of the Act. [United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 546 (7th Cir.1983).] The heart of the matter therefore is: It would ill behoove a court to engraft a presumption on statutory language plain on its face that does not include it. Instead, we prefer to follow the thrust of the compromise reached in Congress and leave the discretionary decision on whether dismissal is with or without prejudice to the courts. [United States v. Caparella, 716 F.2d 976, 980 (2d Cir.1983).] See also United States v. Russo, 741 F.2d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir.1984) (agreeing with Caparella that neither remedy is preferred).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“caused the time under the Speedy Trial Act to stop on february 3, 1987.” . See the Order of February 9, 1987 granting the defendants’ motion for continuance and the attached Pretrial Order. . Of the 53 counts in the indictment, 17 counts were dismissed, and were not submitted to the jury. . "The Act does not create a presumption in favor of dismissal with prejudice when its time limits are violated”
2 later decisions 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.