United States v. Pena’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 486 · 1986
Citation profile
39 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Tutino (1989), United States v. Parker (1990)
39 federal appellate ·
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) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Jones v. Howard · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Griffin v. United States · Porter v. States
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a prosecutor's statements require reversal, the test is whether the statements, viewed against the entire argument before the jury, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cases involving multiple defendants are governed by a single speedy trial clock, which begins to run with the clock of the most recently added defendant”
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.