Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 F.2d 1544 - United States v. Mitchell

United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

769 F.2d 1544 · 1985

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
4
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably State v. Garza (2009), United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia (1992)

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

19019851990200020102020decided

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. § 3282 · 26 U.S.C. § 6531

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Barker v. Wingo · Toussie v. United States · Ryan v. United States · United States v. Habig

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

  1. “[t]he legitimate need of the government to protect its investigations by sealing indictments, however, must also be recognized. The sealing of an indictment allows the government to complete an investigation properly, and can toll the statute of limitations when the investigation must extend beyond the statutory period.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right.... We regard none of the four factors identified above as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process. But, because we are dealing with a fundamental right of the accused, this process must be carried out with full recognition that the accused’s interest in a speedy trial is specifically affirmed in the Constitution.”
    1 later decision 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.