Bayless v. Martine’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 873 · 1970
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland (2004), Sargent v. Genesco, Inc. (1974)
28 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1292
Relies on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Yakus v. United States · Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education · Bachellar v. Maryland · Burnside v. Byars
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Student Expression Area regulation in Hill Hints is a valid exercise of the University’s right to adopt and enforce reasonable, non-discriminatory regulations as to the time, place and manner of student expressions and demonstrations. * * * “We think appellants underscore rather than undermine the reasonableness and constitutionality of the regulation by pointing out that it is permissive and that the University had no codified prohibition which would make the statute area (or any other campus areas) unavailable for student demonstrations. When this is coupled with the administration’s prior and present efforts to allow these very students maximum freedom of expression consistent with its duty to operate the college as an educational institution, we think it underscores the validity of having a regulatory minimum. A regulation governing conduct on a university campus is not a criminal law. * * -X- “The students now before us are mistaken in characterizing the admirable degree of flexibility displayed by the college administration in offering additional places and times to those specified in the Hill Hints regulation in a futile attempt to meet their demands, as some form of ad hoc action. The University’s compliance stands in stark contrast with their intemperate insistence that they would hold their activities when and where they pleased despite the regulation and particular directions to the contrary. Since the prescribed minimum was sufficient, the administration’s wi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since appellants failed to make out a prima facie case demonstrating a reasonable probability of success on the merits a fortiori they did not make that even stronger showing that is prerequisite to the grant of a stay and the issuance of an injunction pending a hearing on the merits of an interlocutory appeal.” 3 2. Defendant MATSUDA has not established that unless a stay is granted he will suffer irreparable injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It does not follow from the refusal to grant a preliminary injunction pending a trial in the court below that the district court would refuse injunctive relief pending an appeal.”
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.