United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 218 · 1987
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (1988), United States v. Dworken (1988)
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Roviaro v. United States · California v. Green
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During the eight months Grant sat with them, her fellow jurors were positioned to have found out what untoward feelings, if any, Grant may have harbored about serving on that jury. If she in fact ever made any remarks suggestive of a desire to find a way to quit the jury, or indicative of a motive, intent, or disposition to fabricate accusations of jury tampering against someone, the other jurors might well have heard them. Her fellow jurors might also have formed an adverse opinion as to Grant’s character or credibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“When the actor’s conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt ..., it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Thus, there was a sufficient basis for the [district] court to have found that each of the conditions necessary for the application of the excited utterance exception was met.”
1 later decision 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.