Riggin v. Kendig

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an 839 day delay between trial and the CA’s action did not prejudice Hudson
• “The legal standard applicable to such delay is demonstration by appellant of some real harm or legal prejudice as a result of the delay.”
• “[W]e are loath to declare that valid trial proceedings are invalid solely because of delays in the criminal process after the trial.”
• “[W]e are loath to declare that valid trial proceedings are invalid solely because of delays in the criminal process after the trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).