Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 Ark. 53 - Bailey v. State

Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2002

12 state decisions

701949195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 44

Relies on Ballard v. United States · Fay v. People of State of New York Bove · Brickhouse v. Hill · State v. Taylor · Whittaker 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We think that the inference deductible from the Fay case (Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 , 67 S.Ct. 1613 , 91 L.Ed. 2043 ) is that where a state does not impose upon women as a class the inescapable duty of jury service, a defendant who complains that due process was denied, or that he was not afforded the equal protection contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, must show something more than continuing failure of jury commissioners to call women for jury service”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[U]pon an indictment for a felony, the accused may be convicted of a misdemeanor, where both offences belong to the same generic class, where the commission of the higher may involve the commission of the lower offence, and where the indictment for the higher offence contains all the substantive allegations necessary to let in proof of the misdemeanor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . but this rule has not been extended to state court trials — and certainly there are no expressions indicating that the discretion permitted commissioners under a State constitution such as ours would be controlled without a showing of conduct resulting in prejudice. See State v. Taylor, 356 Mo. 1216 , 205 SW 2d 734, 738 .””
    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.