Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
661 federal appellate · 283 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,809 later decisions (107 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Warth v. Seldin (1975)
661 federal appellate · 283 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Ex parte Poresky · Phillips v. United States · Bailey v. Patterson · Evers v. Dwyer
Cited together with Ex parte Poresky · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Phillips v. United States · Goosby v. Osser · Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
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 1,809 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . three-judge requirement is a technical one to be narrowly construed. . . .”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hey cannot represent a class of whom they are not a part.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gates v. Collier · Noe v. True
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.