Bailey v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 147 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 25 Cal. 4th 1194 - Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001), 19 Cal. 4th 532 - Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998)
5 federal appellate · 147 state decisions — followed in 27 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
Relies on Griffin v. United States · Figueroa v. United States · Krahn v. Kinney · Gregg v. Rahm · Green 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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The employment of the attorney; (2) Reckless or wanton disregard of the defendant’s interest on the part of the attorney; (3) The attorney’s culpable conduct was ■the proximate cause of an injury suffered by the defendant/ plaintiff, i.e. “but for” the attorney’s conduct, the defendant/plaintiff would have obtained an acquittal or complete dismissal of the charges; (4) As the result of the injury, the criminal defendant/plaintiff suffered damages; and (5) Moreover, a plaintiff will not prevail in an action in criminal malpractice unless and until her has pursued post-trial remedies and obtained relief which was dependent upon attorney error[.]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This [exhaustion] requirement does not, however, relieve the plaintiff of his duty to initiate this cause of action within the statute of limitations period as hereinafter discussed, but it does raise a procedural question, to wit: what is to be done with a civil action filed prior to the completion of the post-conviction process? The answer is that an attorney defendant who is served with a complaint alleging professional malpractice for the handling of a criminal matter may interpose a preliminary objection on the grounds of demurrer. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(4). The trial court shall then reserve its ruling on said objection until the resolution of the post-conviction criminal proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.