United States v. Leslie Roy Jordan and Ronald Bernard Croft

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “ends of justice” continuance must “be specifically limited in time” and supported by findings justified by the record
• finding a Speedy Trial Act violation in part because “the court made no findings to justify its August 28, 1987 order that set the trial date more than 70 days later”
• “We have insisted that any continuance granted under [the ends-of-justice provision] must be based on ‘specific factual circumstances.’” (quoting United States v. Martin, 742 F.2d 512, 514 (9th Cir. 1984))
• “We have insisted that any continuance granted under [the ends-of-justice provision] must be based on ‘specific factual circumstances.’” (quoting United States v. Martin, 742 F.2d 512, 514 (9th Cir. 1984))
• “We have insisted that any continuance granted under [the ends-of-justice provision] must be based on ‘specific factual circumstances.’” (quoting United States v. Martin, 742 F.2d 512, 514 (9th Cir. 1984))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).