Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 F.2d 237 - United States v. Bailey

United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

607 F.2d 237 · 1979

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Powell (1984), United States v. Tarantino (1988)

90 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

77019791980199020002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Kotteakos v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Giordano · Wingo v. Wedding

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

  1. “a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “normal investigative techniques employing a normal amount of resources have failed to make the case within a reasonable period of time.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A conspiracy may ... include two or more separate agreements ... providing the participants in the separate agreements are joined together by their knowledge of the essential features and scope of the overall conspiracy and by the common goal. Where the participants in separate agreements are not so joined, they are not members of a single, overall conspiracy____”
    2 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.