United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.2d 845 · 1976
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1991 · most notably Rozier v. Ford Motor Co. (1978), United States v. Taylor (1983)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1503 · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Phelps Dodge Corp. v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee · United States v. Noland · United States v. Hearod · United States v. Campbell
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In no case shall the fact that the defendant is alleged to be a dangerous special offender be an issue upon the trial of such felony, be disclosed to the jury, or be disclosed before any plea of guilty or nolo contendere or verdict or finding of guilty to the presiding judge without the consent of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he United States Attorney’s argument fails because the statute when literally read prohibits any kind of disclosure of the notice to the presiding judge and the government in this criminal case should be held strictly to the literal language of the Act. While the statute’s literal prohibition against disclosure may be “anomalous” as the district judge concluded, action to remove the anomaly is a matter for the consideration of Congress. Because the government here failed to comply strictly with the statutory prerequisites for enhancement, the enhanced portion of the defendant’s sentences must be overturned.”
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.