Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 925 F.2d 455 - United States v. Mills

United States v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis

925 F.2d 455 · 1991

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Raymer (1991), United States v. Andersen (1991)

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

410199120002010decided

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. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · North Carolina v. Pearce · Lockett v. Ohio · Carnegie v. United States · Mistretta 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he prosecutor is of course constitutionally prohibited from basing these decisions on an individual defendant's race, sex, religion or previous exercise of a legal right,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “) provides: 6 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. 7 Id. Sec. 3161(b). In Mills II, we held that”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “proof of prosecutorial discretion to increase charges after defendant has exercised a legal right does not alone give rise to a presumption [of vindictiveness] in the pre-trial context.”
    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.