Wehr v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Saldana v. State (1993), Byron Nelson Griggs v. State (2016)
48 state decisions
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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Doggett v. United States · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Michelson v. United States · United States v. Falcone
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overerowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such cireumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“The determinative dynamic in our inquiry is whether the delay in bringing the accused to trial was unreasonable, that is, whether it substantially impaired the right of the accused to a fair trial.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Whitney v. State · Rodiack v. State“[i]ts intent is to avoid a demand that an accused defend acts of misconduct other than those charged in the indictment or information and to avoid potential confusion by members of the jury in addressing the issues of the case. The rule demands convictions are to be founded in those facts relevant to the crime or crimes charged. If the thrust of evidence of prior bad acts is only to demonstrate the defendant has a disposition to commit crimes, the evidence should be excluded.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dean v. State · Johnson 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.