Acha v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 28 · 1990
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 18 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Bell (1992), 707 So. 2d 547 - De La Beckwith v. State (1997)
36 federal appellate · 18 district · 4 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. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · McMann v. Richardson · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Tollett v. Henderson · Houltin v. United States
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“can affirm on any ground presented by the record,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] counseled guilty plea must be based on advice which '[is] within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant argues that his recapture or “arrest” triggered Section 3161(b) of the Speedy Trial Act because he was held in custody from his recapture until his indictment for escape. However, it is apparent that defendant was not “arrested” or held for the crime of escape. There was never any complaint for escape, as would have been required to hold defendant for that crime; and defendant was subject to recapture and continued custody based on his original conviction. Thus[,] defendant’s recapture was not the beginning of continuing restraints on his liberty imposed in connection with the escape charge. Rather, the restrictions on defendant’s liberty were based on his original conviction. It follows that defendant’s recapture did not trigger his right to a speedy trial for escape.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cenido
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.