United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 1040 · 1983
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Henderson v. United States (1986), United States v. Diaz-Villafane (1989)
92 federal appellate · 18 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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3173 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 495 · 7 U.S.C. § 2024
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Rideout v. United States · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · United States v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Canron, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp.
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“permits only such delay as is reasonably necessary from the time of filing a pretrial motion to the time of concluding a hearing on it or completing submission of the matter to the court for decision”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specific and reasonably contemporaneous statements of reasons for any extended exclusions of time between filing and hearing ... of pretrial motions.”
5 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.