Bailey v. Henslee’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.2d 840 · 1962
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Television Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors (1971), Reserve Mining Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency and William D. Ruckelshaus, Individually Andas Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Reserve Mining Company v. United States of America, United States of America v. Reserve Mining Company, Reserve Mining Company v. United States of America, the State of Wisconsin v. Reserve Mining Company, Minnesota Environmental Law Institute, Inc. v. United States of America, the State of Michigan v. Reserve Mining Company (1975)
15 federal appellate · 2 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 Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Johnson v. Stevenson · Page v. Work
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our opinion could not operate to command any legal action in the proceedings until it ripened into a judgment formally communicated to the district court. It then follows, it seems to us, that the nine month period ran only from the date our mandate and opinion were filed with that court. Then and only then did they become effective. Then and only then did formal notice come to the district court of the result of the appeal to this court. Then and only then did the stay terminate which, under Rule 38 (a) (1), F.R. Cr.P., was in effect pending the appeal. Compare also Rule 35, F.R. Cr.P. The opinion, of course, was made available earlier to counsel under this court’s Rule 14 (e) and to the district court when copies of the “slip opinion” were routinely delivered to them. Similarly, our judgment was entered in our own records under our Rule 14 (b) on the date it was filed with our clerk. But this court, as does any appellate court, acts formally and officially only through its mandate. * * # We therefore construe our mandate to the effect that the designated period runs from the date of the filing of the mandate and opinion with the district court. * * * The beginning date in this case was thus May 17, 1961. The record shows that the second state trial began well within nine months from that date. The denial of the current application for the writ of habeas corpus was, as a consequence, proper.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. State“"Provided, however, that if Petitioner is retried within nine months from May 17, 1961, the filing date of said opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the clerk’s office of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, for the crime of rape allegedly committed by him in Pulaski County, Arkansas, on or about June 15, 1956, respondent may apply to this court for dismissal of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus and this stay of proceedings: “Provided, further, that should Petitioner not he retried within said period, writ of habeas corpus will then be granted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey 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.