Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 F.2d 408 - United States v. Bailey

United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

458 F.2d 408 · 1972

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
13
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 9 Cal. 3d 871 - People v. Dumas (1973), United States v. Pheaster (1976)

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 states

31019721980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2113

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The affidavit simply discloses that Bailey had been seen at the house and that Cochran was arrested there. No facts are recited from which it could be inferred that Bailey and Cochran were other than casual social guests at the residence .... In short, there is nothing but conjecture to sustain the conclusion that the house contained the objects of the search.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`. . . [A] magistrate's determination of probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant must be supported by an affidavit [and, if necessary, sworn testimony] that discloses the underlying circumstances from which the affiant has concluded that his information is reliable and that it must contain a statement of the underlying circumstances”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No facts are recited from which it could be inferred that [the suspects] were other than casual social guests at the residence .... In short, there is nothing but conjecture to sustain the conclusion that the house contained the objects of the search.”
    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.