Wilson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.3d 562 · 1999
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Ohler v. United States (2000), United States of America v. Guy J. Westmoreland (2001)
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United States v. Olano · Old Chief v. United States · Luce v. United States · Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. · McEwen v. City of Norman
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review--without the need for later objection.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“good example of a conditional ruling is a judge's statement that, if a litigant testifies, then the adverse party will be entitled to cross-examine in such-and-such a way. Until the condition has been satisfied by the testimony, the ruling has no effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Treating a definitive ruling as sufficient to preserve the litigant’s position for appeal also avoids laying a trap for unwary counselors. Many lawyers suppose that it is enough to raise an issue onee and receive a definitive riding. They may believe that raising the question again may annoy the judge. Rules of procedure should be as tolerant as ⅛ practical of lawyers’ suppositions and omissions. When the function of an objection has been served via a motion and ruling before trial, requiring repetition at trial does little to advance the goals of vindicating rights and avoiding errors, but may create an opportunity for rights to be lost by inadvertence. Instead of laying shares, we adopt an approach that tolerates' human failings. Lawyers can concentrate their mental energies on subjects that are more pressing or have yét to be dealt with, without the need to harp bn issues that have been resolved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garland 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.