United States v. Roy’s Empirical Analysis
771 F.2d 54 · 1985
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Nesbitt (1988), United States v. Hunnewell (1989)
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Rideout v. United States · United States v. Mauro · Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus · United States v. Ford · United States v. Reed
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining the duration and expiration dates of the time periods provided in articles III and IV of this agreement, the running of said time periods shall be tolled whenever and for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial, as determined by the court having jurisdiction of the matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (the “Agreement”), 18 U.S.C. App. pp. 545-48 (1982), provides a mechanism by which a prosecutor in one jurisdiction, the “[rjeceiving [sjtate,” id. art. 11(c), may secure the presence of a prisoner who is serving a sentence in another jurisdiction, the “[sjending [s]tate,” id. art. 11(b), in order to try him on charges pending in the receiving state, id. art. IV(a). Once the receiving state commences criminal proceedings through this mechanism, the Agreement affords the prisoner certain protections. Article IV(c) provides that the prisoner’s trial in the receiving state must be commenced within 120 days of his arrival there. Article IV(e) provides that, once the receiving state obtains custody of the prisoner, it must try him prior to returning him to his “original place of imprisonment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Roy“initially brought to federal court pursuant to a writ [of habeas corpus ad prose- quendum] at a time when no detainer has been lodged, the Agreement does not apply.”
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.