Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 F.2d 1366 - Bailey v. Sharp

Bailey v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis

782 F.2d 1366 · 1986

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. (1987), Charles v. Daley (1986)

55 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

5301986199020002010decided

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 Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · United States v. Locke

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

  1. “In addition, Trial Rule 6(B) states: Enlargement. When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specific time by these rules, the court may at any time for cause shown: (1) order the period enlarged, with or without motion or notice, if request therefore is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or extended by a previous order; or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specific period, permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but, the court may not extend the time for taking any action for judgment on the evidence under Rule 50(A), amendment of findings and judgment under Rule 52(B), to correct errors under Rule 59(C), statement in opposition to motion to correct error under Rule 59(E), or to obtain relief from final judgment under rule 60(B), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Eady holds that when a judge extends the time within which to file an application for a new trial, and counsel relies to his detriment on that extension, the 'unique circumstances' of this reliance allow the court to dispose of the motion before it.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it [was] clear that it was not the judge's misstatement but counsel's misreading of the law that led to his failure to file on time.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.