process considerations here bear on the deprivation of liberty, lending more than a passing similarity. Courts have drawn on the Barker model to analyze due process issues arising from delayed hearings in civil proceedings. See United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555, 564, 103 S. Ct. 2005, 76 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1983); People v. Litmon, 162 Cal. App. 4th 383, 395-406, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122 (2008) (applying the Barker factors in a due process claim involving undue delay in commencing a civil commitment proceeding); Morel v. Wilkins, 84 So. 3d 226, 246 (Fla. 2012) (assuming Barker test applied to a claim of delay in a civil commitment proceeding and deciding case on diat basis); In re Lamb, 368 Mass. 491, 500, 334 N.E.2d 28 (1975) (<HOLDING>). In Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty
recognizing massachusetts doctrine that solid default of appearance constitutes a deemed waiver of the right to jury trial holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant holding that a state was embraced within the meaning of the word person  where the word person was defined as meaning and including a partnership association company or corporation as well as a natural person recognizing speedy trial cases including barker as relevant to timeliness of commitment hearing under massachusetts law for sexually dangerous person