Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably Attorney General v. Pelletier (1922), Mack v. State (1932)
9 federal appellate · 73 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 Eacock v. State · State v. Comer · McKee v. State · Dukes v. State · State ex rel. Williams v. Ellis
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In McKee v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 378 , 12 N. E. 510 , it is said: ‘The authorities abundantly settle the proposition that an indictment is not objectionable which charges that the object of the conspiracy is to defraud many persons, not capable of being resolved into individuals, or the public generally, instead of certain named individuals. 2 Bishop Crim. Law, section 209; 2 Wharton Crim. Law, section 1396.’ It does not necessarily follow, from the fact that money was actually paid, that the grand jurors knew the names of the persons contributing the same, or that the evidence before them on that subject was satisfactory. In such cases the general form of pleading has been recognized and sustained. McKee v. State, supra.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kreig v. State““The prosecuting attorney or his deputy shall be allowed at all times to appear before the grand jury, for the purpose of giving information relative to any matter cognizable by it or advice upon any legal matter when required; and he may interrogate witnesses before the grand jury, when the jury or he deems it necessary, but no prosecuting attorney, officer or person shall be present with the grand jury during the expression of their opinions or in giving their votes upon any matter before them.”' §2142, Burns 1926, §9-826, Burns 1933, §2122, Baldwin’s 1934.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Turpin v. State“in Indiana it is the soliciting or the receiving of money by an official to influence him with respect to his official duties that is the gravamen of the offense of bribery”
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.