79 So. 3d 549 - Patterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · 986 So. 2d 917 - Dora v. State · 798 So. 2d 584 - Smiley v. State · 986 So. 2d 965 - Dora v. State
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Given that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, see Klopfer v. State of North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 , 87 S.Ct. 988 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967), this Court must determine whether plain-error review is applicable, i.e., whether an “error of the trial court has impacted upon a fundamental right,” Sanders v. State, 678 So.2d 663, 670 (Miss.1996), and is “so fundamental that it generates a miscarriage of justice.” Morgan v. State, 793 So.2d 615, 617 ([¶ ]9) (Miss.2001). Absent the plain-error criteria being satisfied unequivocally, appellate courts are loath to address issues not presented to the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kleckner v. State
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.