Hakeem v. Beyer’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Blockburger v. United States · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. 37 We disagree. We do not think pretrial incarceration of either thirteen or fourteen and one-half months demonstrates per se oppressive pretrial delay. 7 We stated in Wells: 38 [T]he seriousness of a deprivation of liberty due to pretrial incarceration will vary with the conditions of the defendant's confinement. Indeed, the [Supreme] Court held that the speedy trial guarantee was intended to prevent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hakeem v. Beyer“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]hirteen months of pretrial confinement without any justification warrants a finding of [prejudice of constitutional dimensions].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hakeem v. Beyer
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.