Laroque v. Qantas Airways, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was no speedy trial violation where, among other things, defense counsel agreed to delays and continuances for purposes of plea negotiations
• provisions of the Speedy Trial Act embody a reasonableness standard for exclusion of time only when Congress explicitly required the period of delay to be reasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Richard K. Wells, K-2894 v. George Petsock, Superintendent
  Third Circuit· 1991-08-16· cited 189×
• United States v. Frank James Occhipinti, Jr., Austin Michael Suttles, Timothy James Spence, Tina Marie Swab
  Tenth Circuit· 1993-07-06· cited 89×
• United States v. Scott David Lattany
  Third Circuit· 1993-01-26· cited 88×
• United States v. David Williams
  Second Circuit· 2004-06-10· cited 50×
• United States v. Robert Thomas Johnson, Richard Lee Niedfeldt, and David Lynn Johnson
  Tenth Circuit· 1993-12-22· cited 41×
• United States v. Louis Giambrone
  Second Circuit· 1990-12-04· cited 38×
• Patrice Murphy v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2009-02-05· cited 36×
• United States v. Michael Kelly
  Second Circuit· 1995-01-17· cited 23×
• United States v. Upton
  E.D. New York· 1995-07-07· cited 7×
• United States v. Oberoi
  W.D. New York· 2003-12-11· cited 1×
• United States v. Cervantes
  D. Puerto Rico· 1995-04-20· cited 1×
• United States v. Howse
  D. Utah· 1992-08-27

Other cases named Laroque v. Qantas Airways, Ltd.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Laroque v. Qantas Airways, Ltd.
  Supreme Court· 1990-10-01