Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 1997 · most notably Hill v. State (1982), Berry v. State (1986)
30 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 Speer v. State · Adams v. State · Bruder v. State · Edmonds v. State · Jackson v. State
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * the presumption of law is that a defendant can get a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the offense was committed, and that in order to overcome this presump don the defendant must show clearly that this cannot be done. Indeed, a change of venue in a criminal prosecution must be deemed a wrong to the public unless the necessities of justice to the accused require it, and before a court is justified in sustaining an application therefor on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of the county, it must affirmatively appear that there is such a feeling of prejudice prevailing in the community as will be reasonably certain to prevent a fair and impartial trial.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The application of the defendant for such order of removal shall be by petition setting forth the facts on account of which the removal is requested; and the truth of the allegations in such petition shall be supported by the affidavits of two (2) credible persons who are qualified electors, actual residents of the county and not related to the defendant in any way. Reasonable notice of the application shall be given to the attorney of the State. The court shall hear the application and, after considering the facts set forth in the petition and the affidavits accompanying it and any other affidavits or counter affidavits that may be filed and after hearing any witnesses produced by either party, shall either grant or refuse the petition according to the truth of the facts alleged in it and established by the evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stout v. State““This court has ruled that, in order for an affiant to qualify as a credible person under the statute, he must be cognizant of the prejudice existing throughout the whole county, and not merely in portions thereof. Hedden v. State, 179 Ark. 1079 , 20 S. W. 2d 119 ; Dewein v. State, 120 Ark. 302 . 179 S. W. 346 ; Speer v. State, 130 Ark. 457 , 198 S .W. 113; Williams v. State, 162 Ark. 285 , 258 S. W. 386 ; Mills v. State, 68 Ark. 1005 , 272 S. W. 671 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stout v. State
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.