Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 F.3d 666 - United States of America v. Wayne P. Williams

United States of America v. Wayne P. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

184 F.3d 666 · 1999

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Bownes (2005), United States of America v. Tyrone Hare (2001)

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

270199920002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 152

Relies on Colby v. Jc Penney Company Inc · United States v. Wenger · United States v. Barnes · Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad · United States v. Martinez

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

  1. “I expressly waive my right to appeal my sentence on any ground, including any appeal right conferred by Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 . I also agree not to contest my sentence or the manner in which it was determined in any post-conviction proceeding, including, but not limited to, a proceeding under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the opinions of our sister circuits. See United States v. Williams, 184 F.3d 666 , 671 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Pena, 44 F.3d 437 , 443 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The content and language of the plea agreement itself, as well as the colloquy where necessary, govern our determination as to the validity of the waiver.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.