RABINOVITCH

v.

NYQUIST, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK, ET AL.; UNITED STATES V. LOVASCO; VENDO CO. V. LEKTRO-VEND CORP. ET AL.; GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. UNITED STATES; BATES ET AL. V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA; COUNCIL OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, LOCAL 1, SASOC, AFL-CIO V. CHANCE ET AL.; ILLINOIS BRICK CO. ET AL. V. ILLINOIS ET AL.; DRUMMOND ET UX. V. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF FULTON COUNTY, ET AL.; LEVC, AKA O'BLAK, ET AL. V. CONNORS, TREASURER OF MONTANA, ET AL.; CALIFANO, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE V. MCRAE ET AL.; NEW YORK V. EARL; GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. STEWART ET AL.; FINNEY V. UNITED STATES; HYSTER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; WHITESEL V. UNITED STATES; SHAND V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; BRADLEY ET AL. V. WHITTEN; AND QUALLS V. FRESNO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Howell v. State, 418 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …one to bear in mind the dichotomous purposes of and interests protected by the two clauses. The Due Process Clause protects against an oppressive delay. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2048, 52 L.Ed.2d 752, reh. denied, 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242, 54 L.Ed.2d 164 (1977). However, the purpose of the clause is not to afford wide-ranging protections based on shallow claims of prejudicial delay. MacDonald, supra, at - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1508, 71 L.Ed.2d at 711 (Marshall, J., di…
• Marrero v. State, 428 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
  …identiary search after January 1981 had been “essentially unproductive.” In denying the motion, it held as [*306] controlling the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752, reh’g denied 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242, 54 L.Ed.2d 164 (1977), which involved a similar type of pre-accusatory delay.2 Appellant was subsequently tried by jury and found guilty of both counts of the information. His supplemental motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, fo…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State v. Borges, 467 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …uffered a deprivation of due process as a result of preaccusatorial delay, which would mandate dismissal of the charges against them under the test set forth in United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752, rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242, 54 L.Ed.2d 164 (1977). Accord Marrero v. State, 428 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Howell v. State, 418 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Arrest itself constitutes a form of official accusation, United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1,…