Bayless v. Boyer’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2025
14 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 Hilen v. Hays · Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc. · Horton v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co. · Cox v. Cooper · Williams v. Kentucky Department of Education
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellants have provided no specific rationale for reversing the trial court on this issue and rely instead on a general objection that the Appellees pursued a common defense strategy throughout the trial. Ap-pellees have each noted several instances during the trial which demonstrated their antagonistic interests. That being said, there is no need to recount each of those instances here. As noted above, a trial court’s ruling [regarding peremptory challenges] ... is necessarily made prior to trial and a review of that decision need not focus on what actually occurred during the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for any of the following causes: (a) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prevailing party, or an order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which the party was prevented from having a fair trial. (b) Misconduct of the jury, of the prevailing party, or of his attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the facts reveal a fundamental basis for decision not presented by the parties, it is our duty to address the issue to avoid a misleading application of the law.”). 5 . Id. 6 . See Bayless v. Boyer, 180 S.W.3d 439 (Ky.2005) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.