Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 Ariz. 153 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Chapple (1983), State v. Fisher (1984)

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

6101982199020002010decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · United States v. Bailey · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Prince v. United States · State v. Willits

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.

  1. ““* * * Appellant did not call out or indicate by any physical act that he wished to be taken out peacefully. Appellant testified that he was afraid and understandably so; but in the absence of any facts constituting a withdrawal appellant was not justified in using force against the officers. Had the defense presented evidence satisfying all of the elements of A.R.S. § 13-404, even if this evidence was in complete conflict with the state’s evidence, appellant would have been entitled to an instruction on self-defense.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Williams, 132 Ariz. 153 , 644 P.2d 889, 892 (1982).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Expert testimony is permitted when the subject is beyond the common experience of most persons and the opinion of an expert will assist the trier of fact. If the matter, however, is of such common knowledge that persons of ordinary education and background could reach as intelligent a conclusion as an expert, the testimony should be precluded.”
    1 later decision 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.