green
Positive treatment
1.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Rebecca K. Crossley (99-4076) Starla Grubich (99-4080),defendants-Appellants
The court reasoned that the Speedy Trial Act was enacted to guarantee a defendant a minimum of thirty days to prepare a defense and that in order “[t]o fulfill this policy, the 30-day period should commence only after the indictment or information has been filed and made public and a defendant has first appeared with counsel engaged or appointed to represent him at trial.” Id.; see also United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1293 (5th Cir.1994) (adopting the Daly court’s reasoning and commencing the thirty-day period on the date on which the district court appointed new counsel after dete…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Storm
But see United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1520 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (expressly declined to adopt the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Daly, supra, finding that Congress did not have any "particular type of counsel in mind.”) (emphasis in original). .
discussed
Cited "but see"
Minor v. State
(2×)
But cf. United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (applying extended Helm analysis to sixty year sentence with parole); Whitmore v. Maggio, 742 F.2d 230 (5th Cir.1984) (sentences of fifty and seventy-five years without benefit of parole must receive Helm proportionality analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Martinez
See United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir.), reh'g denied, 749 F.2d 733 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (court noted, however, that it has not ruled out the possibility of a narrow exception to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Manuel Vasquez and Jose Pollo Renteria
See United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1516-19 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); United States v. Novak, 715 F.2d at 814-15 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Matta-Ballesteros
See United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1531 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe S. Gonzales
See United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 , 1532 n. 22 (11th Cir.1984) (stating that rule 32(c)(3)(D) “does not purport to state the requirements of due process”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, -, 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 2323, 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thorp
See also United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 , 1526-27 n. 11 (11th Cir.1984), cert. den. sub nom Yamanis v. United States, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (stating that under the Solem test, "the court may consider the crime actually committed as well as the crime generally proscribed"); State v. Lindsey, 203 Wis.2d 423 , 554 N.W.2d 215, 219-20 , rev. den. 205 Wis.2d 136 , 555 N.W.2d 816 (1996) (examining the ages of the parties and other specifics of the defendant's offense, sexual assault of a child, under the first step of the Solem analysis); State v. Bartlett, 164…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Alfonso Greene v. United States
Parks v. United States, 832 F.2d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir.1987) (“Due process protects a defendant’s right not to be sentenced on the basis of false information and invalid premises.”) (citing United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972)); see also United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1532 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2322 -23, 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sokoloff
See also United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100 , 105 S.Ct. 2323 , 85 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington
v.
Standard Oil Company of California
v.
Standard Oil Company of California
No. 84-1348.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 1985.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.