Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 NE2D 1088 - Bailey v. State

Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2006

11 state decisions

90198319902000decided

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 Langley v. State · White v. State · Frazier v. State · Brown v. State · Dorton 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[summary judgment is appropriate in this case because, upon the face of the record, it appeared that every ultimate issue sought to be presented by Petitioner was available to him at the time of the earlier proceedings. While it is true that whether or not an issue has been waived can be a question of fact, in the context of post conviction rules its existence or non-existence is a conclusion, a conclusion which, in this case, is inescapable upon the face of the record. Only by pleading some fact or facts which, if proved, would dispel that conclusion, would Petitioner have been entitled to a hearing, such hearing obviously being for the purpose of determining the correctness of the facts alleged. Here there were no such facts alleged which if proven, would have excused Petitioner from presenting the claims he seeks to present in the earlier proceedings.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"As petitioner points out, he was in Michigan City, making an immediate conference between himself and his counsel impossible. His counsel also needed adequate time to review the record and determine if amendment of the petition was necessary. Under Ind.R.P.C. 1, $ 8, a petitioner must raise all available grounds for relief in his original petition. By being denied adequate time to amend the petition, the petitioner may be prejudiced if he files subsequent post-conviction petitions. Thus in the case at hand, the denial of the petitioner's motion for a continuance did prejudice petitioner."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of the petition when it appears from the pleadings.... that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."”
    2 later decisions 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.