Norton v. Parke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

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

1. “because [they] establish [ ] the law governing the present action and ‘there is no [Sixth Circuit] published opinion that would serve as well.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hinds v. Tennessee · 1 F. Supp. 2d 828 - Anderson v. Sundquist

2. “(a) [H]e shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint.... The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decision of the State parole agency relating to the prisoner. (b) The written notice and request for final disposition referred to in paragraph (a) hereof shall be given or sent by the prisoner to the warden, commissioner of corrections, or other official having custody of him, who shall promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. (d) If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the return of the prisoner to the original place of imprisonment, such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moe · 98 F. Supp. 2d 916 - Cheek v. Lamanna

3. “Requiring prisoners to strictly comply with the provisions of the IAD produces substantial benefits. First, if a prisoner uses standard IAD form 2, and includes the certificate required by Article 111(a), then the prosecuting authority will be notified that the IAD has been invoked and will be better able to avoid this severe sanction of dismissal mandated by Article V(c). Second, because prosecutors are not currently compelled to sort through every prisoner’s correspondence and pleadings to find IAD references, the IAD remains an effective system to rapidly adjudicate the claims of prisoners challenging extradition. Third, requiring strict compliance with the IAD provides the prosecutor with information and the ability to decide whether or not to prosecute in the [receiving] state. If the prisoner is currently serving a lengthy sentence on a serious charge, then the [receiving] state might opt not to spend limited resources on a second trial unlikely to produce additional benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 20 Va. App. 619 - Eckard v. Commonwealth