State v. Naveira’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
33 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 445 So. 2d 605 - State v. Del Gaudio · 459 So. 2d 306 - Tucker v. State · Genden v. Fuller · 630 So. 2d 544 - Gorby v. State · 791 So. 2d 1088 - State v. Williams
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(j) Delay and Continuances; Effect on Motion. ... [A] pending motion for discharge shall be granted by the court unless it is shown that ... (3) the accused was unavailable for trial under subdivision (k).... [[Image here]] (k) Availability for Trial. A person is unavailable for trial if ... the person or counsel is not ready for trial on the date trial is scheduled. A person who has not been available for trial during the term provided for in this rule is not entitled to be discharged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. TG · State v. T.G.“[A] defendant’s speedy trial rights are not violated if his case is set for trial within the time required by the rule. At that time, if defendant is not ready for trial, while due process rights may be implicated if the scheduled trial date is one on which defendant could not reasonably be expected to be prepared, defendant’s speedy trial rights under the rule have been observed. A defendant who is compelled to go to trial unprepared may raise his due process rights in the trial court and on appeal, where each case will be determined on its own facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. TG · State v. Hall“Naveira argues that our conclusion unlawfully forces him to choose between two rights, the right to speedy trial and the right to adequately prepare for trial. We disagree. Naveira had the right to invoke the speedy trial rule and go to trial within ten days. He also had the right to .request a continuance because he was not prepared to go. to trial in ten days. ... The mere fact that Naveira had to elect between a speedy trial under the rule and adequate preparation, however, did not violate his constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.