Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

cited by 14 later decisions

states following

February 1990

most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1990

14 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

Relies on 101 So. 2d 869 - Bateh v. State · Rebjebian v. State · Daiger v. Daiger · Turknett v. State · 102 So. 2d 412 - Johnson v. State

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

“If the evidence had shown that there was property of value in the building, the subject of larceny, then the jury might have assumed that the accused was attempting to break into the building for the purpose of committing larceny. But, without some evidence as to what property the accused was interested in taking, the jury could not assume that the intent was evident to commit the higher of the two offenses [grand larceny as distinguished from petit larceny] denounced by the statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 192 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. State
““We, therefore, hold that, although the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of attempting to break and enter with intent to commit petit larceny, a misdemeanor under F.S. § 776.04(3), F.S.A., there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of a felony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 196 So. 2d 762 - Fitz v. State
“groceries. Full of meats, sugar, flour, canned goods.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 192 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. State

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.