green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.9 score
“prejudice is necessarily inherent in any long delay”
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Carr
prejudice is necessarily inherent in any long delay
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruffin v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Md.), summarily aff d, 350 U. S. 857, 857 (76 SC 101, 100 LE 761) (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
De La O Jr. v. Federal Communications Commission
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 857 (1955)(per curiam); Henderson v. United States, 429 F.2d 588, 590 (10th Cir. 1970); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b).
cited
Cited "see"
Chavez v. United States of America
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 857 (1955)(per curiam); Henderson v. United States, 429 F.2d 588, 590 (10th Cir. 1970); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20
(2×)
See Bodin v. Vagshenian, 462 F.3d 481, 484 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Rodriguez v. Sarabyn, 129 F.3d 760, 766 (5th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Derek A. Ross v. Vincent R. Bryan
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see"
Lesa M. Primeaux v. United States
(3×)
See Tonelli, supra. In fact, this argument was expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
Lesa Primeaux v. United States
See Tonelli, supra. In fact, this argument was expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Webb v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Gutierres de Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 111 F.3d 1148, 1156 (4th Cir.1997); Jamison v. Wiley, 14 F.3d 222 , 227 n. 2 (4th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lesa Primeaux v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S. Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (1996) (“The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, . . . .”).
examined
Cited "see"
Lesa M. Primeaux, Formerly Known as Lesa M. Lamont, Formerly Known as Lisa M. Bad Wound v. United States
(4×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (1996) ("The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,....”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Durcholz v. FKW Inc.
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Duffy v. United States, 966 F.2d 307, 314 (7th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Salazar v. Ballesteros
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barry J. Maron, Dr. v. United States of America Stephen E. Epstein, Dr. Lameh Fananapazir, Dr. Edward Korn, Dr. Neil Epstein, Dr.
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); Jamison v. Wiley, 14 F.3d 222, 237 (4th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Carter, 983 F.2d 1316, 1322 (4th Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds by Gutierrez, 515 U.S. 417 , 115 S.Ct. 2227 , 132 L.Ed.2d 375 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd.
See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff'd, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perry v. United States
(2×)
Ranch, 913 F.2d at 1542 ; see Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
examined
Cited "see"
Hallett v. United States
(4×)
Lutz v. Secretary of the Air Force, 944 F.2d 1477, 1488 (9th Cir.1991); Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. McRoberts, 409 F.2d 195, 197 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1014 , 90 S.Ct. 551 , 24 L.Ed.2d 505 (1970); see Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 215 F.2d 800, 807 (9th Cir.1954) vacated 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Armstrong
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) 8 The Browns argue that substitution must be denied because their complaint was pleaded, "in the alternative," as only encompassing conduct that was outside the scope of employ.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Armstrong
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ashworth v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
examined
Cited "see"
John L. Kelly v. United States
(4×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); Doggett v. United States, 875 F.2d 684, 687 (9th Cir.1988); Nelson v. United States, 838 F.2d 1280, 1282-83 (D.C.Cir.1988); H.R.Rep.
discussed
Cited "see"
S.J. & W. Ranch, Inc. v. Dexter Lehtinen and United States of America
(2×)
Nasuti, 906 F.2d at 805 n. 3; Arbour, 903 F.2d at 421-22 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b); see Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Donio v. United States
(2×)
See, Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sheila Arbour, Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Arbour v. Eugene Jenkins
(2×)
See generally Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Cronin v. Hertz Corp., 818 F.2d 1064, 1065 (2d Cir.1987); Nasuti v. Scannell, 792 F.2d 264 , 266 n. 3 (1st Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gogek v. Brown University
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); Nasuti v. Scannell, 792 F.2d 264 , 266 at n. 3 (1st Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walters v. White
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); see also Henderson v. United States, 429 F.2d 588 (10th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicholas Nasuti v. James Scannell
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam), vacating 215 F.2d 800 (9th Cir.1954); Wilkinson v. Gray, 523 F.Supp. 372, 374 (E.D.Va. 1981); aff'd, 677 F.2d 998 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 906 , 103 S.Ct. 209 , 74 L.Ed.2d 167 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robbins v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keener v. Department of the Army
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); Simpson v. United States, 484 F.Supp. 387 (W.D.Pa.1980).
examined
Cited "see"
Elizabeth Ann Norton v. United States of America, and John Turner, Robert O'Brien
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See n.8 Infra 6 See, e. g., Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955), Vacating, 215 F.2d 800 (9 Cir. 1954); James v. United States, 467 F.2d 832 (4 Cir. 1972); Yates v. United States, 365 F.2d 663 (4 Cir. 1966); Jennings v. United States, 291 F.2d 880 (4 Cir. 1961) 7 We view this case solely as one of statutory interpretation.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry
See Petition of Provoo, D.C., 17 F.R.D. 183, 200 (1955), affirmed, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).” An examination of the citation to Provoo, supra, would appear to indicate the rule was based upon the court’s viewpoint that it possessed the inherent power to dismiss a case or take other action on the findings and/or sentence for want of prosecution when there is unnecessary delay in bringing an accused to trial.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. First
See Petition of Provoo, D.C., 17 F.R.D. 183, 200 (1955), affirmed, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).” ( 21 U.S.C.M.A. at 118 , 44 C.M.R. at 172 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Warrington
See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183, 200 (1955), affirmed, 350 U.S. 857 , 100 L.Ed. 761 , 76 S.Ct. 101 (1955).’ [ 21 U.S.C.M.A. at 118 , 44 C.M.R. at 172 ], We do not believe that the court intended to promulgate a new rule of law applicable to a request for speedy trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rogelio Modera Lara
(2×)
See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.1955), aff’d per curiam, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Seafarers International Union of North America
See In re Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff’d per curiam, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Burton
See Petition of Provoo, 17 FRD 183, 200 (1955), affirmed, 350 US 857 , 100 L Ed 761 , 76 S Ct 101 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca4 1970
The text of the Agreement may be found in ABA Standards Relating to Speedy Trial 50 (Approved Draft, 1968) 6 E.g., Va.Code Ann. 19.1-191 (1960); see Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 943 (1956) 7 E.g., Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff'd mem., 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); Barker v. Municipal Court of Salinas Jud.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Oglesby
See United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116 , 86 S. Ct. 773 , 15 L.Ed.2d 627 , and In re Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff'd sub now, United States v. Provoo, 350 U. S. 857 , 76 S. Ct. 101 , 100 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Betty Fuller Farmer
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
cited
Cited "see"
Maurice Evans v. United States of America, John B. Philson v. United States
See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff’d per curiam, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert James Pitts v. State of North Carolina
See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183, 196 (D.Md.), aff’d mem., 350 U.S. 857 , *185 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) for a discussion of the historical antecedents of tills right which is embodied in the federal constitution and in all but five of the state constitutions.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McIntyre
McIntyre “cannot exploit a delay which is attributable primarily to his own acts or to which he has consented.” United States v. Lustman, supra, 258 F.2d at 477 ; see United States v. Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), aff’d per curiam 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cobb v. United States
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gene Z. Hanrahan v. United States of America, William T. P. Shea v. United States of America, John W. Tynan v. United States
See Petition of Provoo, D.Md., 17 F.R.D. 183, 198 , affirmed per curiam, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955); United States v. McWilliams, D.D.C., 69 F.Supp. 812, 814-815 (1946), affirmed, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 259 , 163 F.2d 695 (1947); Frankel v. Woodrough, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 796, 798-799 (1925).
cited
Cited "see"
Rafael Quintana Sanchez v. United States
See United States v. Provoo, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 101 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955), af firming per curiam 176 F.R.D. 183 (D.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Barchris Construction Corp.
See General Stores Corp. v. Shlensky, supra, at 466 of 350 U.S., at 519 of 76 S.Ct., 100 L.Ed. 550. 4.
Williams
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 24.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1955.
Henry C. Clausen argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Morton Hollander argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Burger and Paul A. Sweeney.
Cited by 320 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)
Certiorari, 348 U. S. 926, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argued October 13,1955. Decided October 17, 1955.
This case is controlled by the California doctrine of respondeat superior. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in the light of that governing principle.