Bailey v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 1166 · 1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2015
6 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Cupp v. Naughten · Sumner v. Mata · Moore v. Illinois · United States v. Monton
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony justifies habeas corpus relief only when it is "material in the sense of [being a] crucial, critical, highly significant factor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is limited to determining whether a trial judge's error is so extreme that it constituted denial of fundamental fairness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e do not sit as a super state supreme court to review error under state law.”
2 later decisions 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.