State v. Loewe’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably State v. Fleer (1993), Tamme v. Commonwealth (1988)
28 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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · State v. Valentine · State v. Burton · State v. Buckles
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. If defendant announces that he is ready for trial and files a request for a speedy trial, then the court shall set the case for trial as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. 2. The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by mandamus. Neither the failure to comply with this section nor the state’s failure to prosecute shall be grounds for the dismissal of the indictment or information unless the court also finds that the defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bohannon · State v. Engel“The right to a speedy trial guarantees to a criminal defendant that the state will move fast enough to assure the defendant of the early and proper disposition of the charges against him. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 459 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468, 474 (1971). What is essential is orderly expedition and not mere speed. Id. This is because the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not only protect the defendant, it also protects society by keeping defendants from using long pretrial delays to their own advantage. Deprivation of the right to a speedy trial will not, therefore, prejudice the defendant per se. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2187 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 101, 112 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.