Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 OHIOST3D 33 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
14
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 94 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 135 Ill. 2d 159 - People v. Sandoval (1990), Demers v. State (1988)

2 federal appellate · 94 state decisions — followed in 14 states

39019861990200020102020decided

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 Davis v. Alaska · State v. Ferguson · 59 Ohio St. 2d 14 - State v. Gardner · State v. Kamel · 14 Ohio App. 3d 343 - State v. Leslie

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

  1. “Evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity, opinion evidence of the victim's sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the victim's sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, or the victim's past sexual activity with the offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The contested issue in this case is consent.... The victim testified on direct examination that she never consents to sex with men. The testimony proffered by [defendant] directly refutes this contention. [T]his evidence is submitted for more than mere impeachment of a witness’ credibility. . . . [T]he proffered evidence has a more important purpose, which is to negate the implied establishment of an element of the crime charged.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “First, by guarding the complainant's sexual privacy and protecting her from undue harassment, the law discourages the tendency in rape cases to try the victim rather than the defendant. In line with this, the law may encourage the reporting of rape, thus aiding crime prevention. Finally, by excluding evidence that is unduly inflammatory and prejudicial, while being only marginally probative, the statute is intended to aid in the truth-finding process.”
    4 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.