Williamson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
207 U.S. 425 · 1908
Citation profile
628 federal appellate · 101 district · 130 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,125 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Glasser v. United States (1942), Michelson v. United States (1948)
628 federal appellate · 101 district · 130 state decisions — followed in 30 states
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 Burton v. United States · Pettibone v. United States · United States v. Hudson · Callan v. Wilson
Cited together with Wong Tai v. United States · United States v. William Rabinowich · Hagner v. United States · Thornton v. United States · Glasser v. United States
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 1,125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that an indictment for conspiring to commit an offense — in which the conspiracy is the gist of the crime — it is not necessary to allege with technical precision all the elements essential to the commission of the offense which is the object of the conspiracy ... In charging such a conspiracy ‘certainty to a common intent, sufficient to identify the offense which the defendants conspired to commit, is all that is necessary.’ ””
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As has been frequently said, great latitude is allowed in the reception of circumstantial evidence, the aid of which is constantly required, and therefore, where direct evidence of the fact is wanting, the more the jury can see of the surrounding facts and circumstances the more correct their judgment is likely to be. ‘The competency of a collateral fact to be used as the basis of legitimate argument is not to be determined by the conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford in reference to the litigated fact. It is enough if these may tend, even in a slight degree, to elucidate the inquiry, or to assist, though remotely, to a determination probably founded in truth. Stevenson v. Stewart, 11 Pa. 307 .’ The modern tendency, both of legislation and of the decision of courts, is to give as wide a scope as possible to the investigation of facts. Courts of error are especially unwilling to reverse cases because unimportant and possibily, irrelevant testimony may have crept in, unless there is reason to think that practical injustice has been thereby caused.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Senators and Representatives * * * shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of the respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same * * *." (U.S. Const., art. I, § 6.)”
7 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.