Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 Md. 470 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
8
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Newton v. State (1977), Oken v. State (1992)

74 state decisions

2202001decided

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 Morgan v. Devine · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe · Chisley v. State · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland · Berger 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ 'An allegation simply of breaking, entering, and stealing states the burglary in a form which makes it single, and a conviction therefor will bar an indictment for the larceny or the burglary alone. But equally well a first count may set out a breaking and entering with intent to steal, and a second may allege the larceny as a separate thing, and thereon the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for both.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Historically, there was justification for the doctrine of merger, which included the fact that the incidents of a trial for a felony were so different from those of a trial for a misdemeanor that it was unfair to permit the prosecution to interchange them.”
    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.