Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 826 F.2d 1208 - Burkett v. Cunningham

Burkett v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

826 F.2d 1208 · 1987

Citation profile

164
cited by 164 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 7 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 164 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Harris v. Champion (1994), Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie (2001)

73 federal appellate · 7 district · 16 state decisions

80019871990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · United States v. Marion · Rose v. Lundy · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo

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

  1. “(1) prevention of oppressive incarceration pending appeal; (2) minimization of anxiety and concern of those convicted awaiting the outcome of their appeals; and (3) limitation of the possibility that a convicted person’s grounds for appeal, and his or her defenses in case of reversal and retrial, might be impaired.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “All four [Barker] factors are to be balanced in light of the facts and the circumstances of the case . . . [but] once a defendant has been convicted it would be the rarest of circumstances in which a right to a speedy trial could be infringed without a showing of prejudice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.”
    2 later decisions 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.