United States v. Noone’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 20 · 1990
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Sanchez (1990), United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez (2003)
75 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 4247
Relies on Thomas v. Arn · Davis v. Alaska · Holland v. United States · Carnegie v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(h) The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence: (1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to— (A) delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant; [[Image here]] (F) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion; [[Image here]] (J) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court. [[Image here]] (4) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the defendant is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial. [[Image here]] (7) (A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragr”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The momentous decision to acquit or convict a criminal defendant cannot be compared with ordinary decision-making without risking trivialization of the constitutional standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paulson v. State · Vargas v. Keane
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.