Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 774 P2D 118 - Phillips v. State

Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2004

13 state decisions

100198919902000decided

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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida

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

  1. “(c) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: * * * * * * (3) Delay granted by the court pursuant to Section (d). * * * * * * (d) Continuances may be granted as follows: * * * * * * (2) On motion of * * * the court if: (i) The defendant expressly consents; or * * * * * * (iii) Required in the due administration of justice and the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced. (e) Upon receiving notice of possible delay the defendant shall show in writing how the delay may prejudice his defense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We do not establish procedural rules for the States, except when mandated by the Constitution. We find no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial right can be quantified into a specified number of days or months. The States, of course, are free to prescribe a reasonable period consistent with constitutional standards, but our approach must be less precise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.