Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably MacK v. State (1984), 24 Md. App. 128 - Andresen v. State (1975)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 129 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 Mattox v. United States · McDonald v. Pless · Woodward v. Leavitt · Kelly v. Huber Baking Co. · Wilson v. State
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t would be a most pernicious practice, and in its consequences dangerous to this much valued mode of trial, to permit a verdict, openly and solemnly declared in the [c]ourt, to be subverted by going behind it and inquiring into the secrets of the jury room”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Each count of an indictment is regarded as if it were a separate indictment, and the inquiry is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction on that count without regard to the disposition of other counts.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In this State a motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the court in criminal as well as civil cases, and from an order overruling such a motion no appeal will lie. Archer v. State, 45 Md. 457 [(1876)]; Miller v. State, 135 Md. 379, 382 [, 109 A. 104 (1919)]; Myers v. State, 137 Md. 482, 487 [, 113 A. 87 (1921)]; Bosco v. State, 157 Md. 407, 410 [, 146 A. 238 (1929)]; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1, 8 [, 26 A.2d 770 (1942)]; Quesenbury v. State, 183 Md. 570, 572 [, 39 A.2d 685 (1944)]; Haley v. State, [ 200 Md. 72, 77 , 88 A.2d 312 (1952)]. Cf. Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360, 367 [, 46 A.2d 607 (1946)].” 204 Md. at 66-67 .”
2 later decisions 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.