110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 978 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,001 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably 830 So. 2d 792 - Pagan v. State (2002), State v. Esposito (1984)
7 federal appellate · 978 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Lovely v. United States · Wallace v. State · Nickels v. State · Suarez v. State of Florida · State v. Lapage
Cited together with Rodriguez v. New York · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Ring v. Arizona
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 1,001 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if it casts light upon the character of the act under investigation by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of the prior offenses would have a relevant or a material bearing on some essential aspect of the offense being tried.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. State · B. A. A. v. State“evidence of any facts relevant to a material fact in issue except where the sole relevancy is character or propensity of the accused is admissible unless precluded by some specific exception or rule of exclusion.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage““Gluck v. State, supra, was a good example of the application of the rule which we here announce. There it was held error to permit testimony regarding an offense allegedly committed three or four years prior to the offense charged. This was so because the prior offense was totally independent of the subsequent act and bore no relevancy to it whatsoever. In other words it had no probative value with relation to any material fact in issue. In holding such evidence inadmissible this court merely adhered to the original rule of excluding irrelevant testimony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.