Bailey v. Fore’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1990
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Meade v. Saunders · Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Ormsby's Administrator · Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Blunt's Administrator · Nicholson v. Garland · Davis v. Rodgers
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact that the jury had a right to consider all the circumstances in the case is stressed. This is entirely true, but the circumstances which it may consider must be of evidential value. Under the guise of considering circumstances it is not left free to roam at will. The verdict must rest on facts proven, fair inferences therefrom or circumstances having a tendency to establish the necessary facts. Where affirmative relief is asked it must affirmatively appear that the verdict rests at least on some one of these foundations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lennon v. Smith
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.