Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 493 N.W.2d 419 - Bailey v. State

Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2015

4 state decisions

20199220002010decided

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 Hinkle v. State · State v. Risdal · Washington v. Scurr · Jones v. State · State v. Newman

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

  1. “Although this issue was ... not raised on direct appeal, we find “sufficient reason” for not having done so exists because it was the direct appeal itself in which error on this issue was found to not be properly preserved, thus suggesting trial counsel had failed to provide effective assistance of counsel by not properly preserving error.”
    1 later decision 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.