State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 847 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Love · 376 So. 2d 136 - State v. Reaves · 939 So. 2d 1245 - State v. Batiste · 622 So. 2d 845 - State v. Johnson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As noted at the outset, the principal issue on this appeal is whether the trial court, as the State argues, erred in granting Mr. Scott's motion to quash. The jurisprudence has recognized the State's authority to enter a nolle prosequi and to reinstitute the charge. [5] The jurisprudence, however, has recognized that the State's authority may be overborne under the circumstances of any given case by the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/27/05) , 913 So.2d 843 , writ denied, 06-0822 (La.10/13/06), 939 So.2d 356 . A defendant challenging the State's nolle prosequi and reinstitution of charges has the burden of showing a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. State v. Henderson, 00-0511, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/13/00), 775 So.2d 1138, 1142 . The standard for analyzing a defendant's claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated is the four factor test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 531-32 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192-93 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), which is as follows: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 7 (La. 10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245, 1250 . The circumstances of each individual case will determine the weight to be ascribed to the length of and the reason for the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.