Bailey v. Chattem, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
838 F.2d 149 · 1988
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990), Chattem, Inc. v. Bailey (1988)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Hanna v. Plumer · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]or complaints filed on or after January 1, 1987, if a judgment is rendered on a written instrument, interest shall be calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate of 12% per year compounded annually, unless the instrument has a higher rate of interest.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.... Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date of the judgment.... (b) Interest shall be computed daily to the date of payment ... and shall be compounded annually.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]ost-judgment interest is at least rationally capable of classification ... as procedural. Although the primary purpose of post-judgment interest is to compensate a successful plaintiff for the time between his entitlement to damages and the actual payment of those damages by the defendant, post-judgment interest also serves a salutary housekeeping purpose for the forum by creating an incentive for unsuccessful defendants to avoid frivolous appeals and by minimizing the necessity for court-supervised execution upon judgments.”
3 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.