State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 state decisions

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

1. “similar in kind and reasonably close in time,”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R.G. v. R.G. · State v. Kemp

2. “[E]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 N.J. Super. 106 - State v. Foglia · State v. Barden

3. “[t]he requirement set forth as prong two of Cofield , however, is not one that can be found in the language of Evidence Rule 404(b).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Kemp · 415 N.J. Super. 210 - State v. Goodman