Joseph L. Bailey v. Kevin C. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 366 · 1987
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Rakovich v. Wade (1988), Golino v. City of New Haven (1991)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Bell v. Wolfish · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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.
“The jury was instructed on the elements of Indiana’s disorderly conduct statute, and also on the concept of probable cause. If the jury believed Bailey’s testimony and that of witness Gary Lueck, it could reasonably have found that Andrews did not have probable cause to arrest Bailey under that statute. The jury also could have found that Andrews acted in bad faith in arresting Bailey. The jury thus could have found that Andrews’s arrest of Bailey violated Bailey’s fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gorra v. Hanson“The issue must be the same as that involved in the prior judicial proceeding; the issue must actually have been litigated; the issue must have been resolved; and the issue’s determination must have been necessary to the judgment in the prior proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in any given § 1983 suit, the plaintiff must still prove a violation of the underlying constitutional right; and depending on the right, merely negligent conduct may not be enough to state a claim”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kincaid v. Vail
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.