United States v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.2d 299 · 1991
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · United States v. Lovasco · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · In re Disbarment of Johnson · Gozlon-Peretz 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f a litigant files papers in a fashion that is technically at variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant's action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could result in the defendant's being returned to prison to serve the entire special parole term without credit for time already served on parole.”
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.