Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 F.3d 1107 - Bailey v. Rae

Bailey v. Rae’s Empirical Analysis

339 F.3d 1107 · 2003

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Barker v. Fleming (2005), Cannedy v. Adams (2013)

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

210200320102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Kyles v. Whitley · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc

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.

  1. “The steep hurdle set by the state court runs contrary to the materiality test that has been set out by the Supreme Court. In Bagley, the Court explained that evidence is material if there is a “reasonable probability” that a different outcome would have occurred had the evidence been disclosed, meaning that there was a “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” The Court, in arriving at the standard, made a point of distinguishing the stricter “newly discovered evidence” standard of the type applied by the Oregon state court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was either “contrary to,” or was an “unreasonable application” of, “clearly established federal law” as set forth by the United States Supreme Court; or (2) was based on an “unreasonable determination” of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Independent corroboration of the defense's theory of the case by a neutral and disinterested witness is not cumulative of testimony by interested witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.