Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 675 F.2d 1292 - United States v. Bailey

United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

675 F.2d 1292 · 1982

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably McDowell v. United States (1988), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)

63 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 14 states

4801982199020002010decided

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. § 751 · 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Cupp v. Naughten · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann

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

  1. “Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that “he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “contain facts and arguments that [made] clear the basis of [his] objections.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[A] judge must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case before him demand. . . . To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter." 332 U.S. at 723 -24 , 68 S.Ct. at 323 .”
    2 later decisions 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.