Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Mann v. Com

561 S.W.2d 335 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Mann v. Com

3 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Vincent

    134 S.W.3d 17 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004)

    Instead of a fixed rule, it provided a four-factor analysis: Ky. App., 561 S.W.2d 335 (1978). Ky., 458 S.W.2d 761 (1970).

  2. Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Blincoe

    33 S.W.3d 533 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    A delay of even a few months has been found to violate a defendant's right to a speedy trial. Mann v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 561 S.W.2d 335, 337 (1978). Forcing Blincoe to wait for trial until after this Court, and possibly the Kentucky Supreme Court, rendered a final opinion on the appeal of the interlocutory order would be improper.

  3. Johnson v. Com

    709 S.W.2d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    In Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 709 S.W.2d 838, 839 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 865 (1986), a mistrial was declared because a witness referred to the defendant as an "ex-convict.

    Johnson's final argument is that the one-year lapse between the mistrial and the retrial denied him the right to a speedy trial. He cites Mann v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 561 S.W.2d 335 (1978), for the proposition that a lapse of seven-and-one-half months between a demand for trial and the trial itself denied the accused of a speedy trial. We find Mann to be distinguishable from this case, because in Mann, the defendant made a demand for a speedy trial.