Missouri Court of Appeals· 2/19/1985

State v. Smith

Citations

686 S.W.2d 543
1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3999

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “[t]he state did not meet its burden [under the IAD of] establishing] that the defendant’s motions and request[s] [for discovery] delayed the trial” because: (1
explaining that the rule that, “in general, an overcrowded docket is not per se good cause to extend the [IAD] time period ... is generally recognized and followed” (quotation omitted)
finding a defendant’s request for disclosures prior to trial did not provide a basis for extending the IAD time period because there was “no evidence the process of discovery did in fact delay the trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crow, Hogan, Maus, Prewitt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.