four-pronged balancing test (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

four-pronged balancing test in District of Columbia

5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2005 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2005To analyze a claim that the right to a speedy trial has been denied, we use the familiar four-pronged balancing test established by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

2005To analyze a claim that the right to a speedy trial has been denied, we use the familiar four-pronged balancing test established by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

51978–2005
Branch v. United States green
dc · 1977
2 sentences

1982Under that test, we weigh the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the accused, Eg., Gaffney v. United States, D.C.App., 421 A.2d 924 (1980); Bethea v. United States, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 787 (1978); Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977).

1978E. g., United States v. Bolden, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 624 (1977); Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977).

21978–1982
Gaffney v. United States green
dc · 1980
1 sentence

1982Under that test, we weigh the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the accused, Eg., Gaffney v. United States, D.C.App., 421 A.2d 924 (1980); Bethea v. United States, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 787 (1978); Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977).

11982–1982
Bethea v. United States green
dc · 1978
1 sentence

1982Under that test, we weigh the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the accused, Eg., Gaffney v. United States, D.C.App., 421 A.2d 924 (1980); Bethea v. United States, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 787 (1978); Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977).

11982–1982
United States v. Bolden green
dc · 1977
1 sentence

1978E. g., United States v. Bolden, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 624 (1977); Branch v. United States, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 998 (1977).

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

MS 7 (1995–2006) DC 5 (1978–2005) MT 4 (1987–2000) AZ 3 (1974–1975) AL 3 (1977–1998) IL 2 (1997–1997)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check