United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
877 F.2d 734 · 1989
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Baker (1993), United States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval (1990)
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 3163 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 542 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Scharffe v. Perkins · United States v. Loud Hawk · United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · United States v. Nance
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The length of delay is a 'threshold' factor. If 'presumptively prejudicial' the length of delay necessitates an examination of the other three factors.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The reason for delay is the focal inquiry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[a] more neutral reason such as negligence ... should be weighted less heavily.'”
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.