Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 Md. 143 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Hadder v. State (1965), Kardy v. SHOOK, J. (1965)

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 32 state decisions

27020012010decided

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 Warszower v. United States · Jones v. State · Wood v. State · Foble v. Knefely · Charlton Bros. Transportation Co. v. Garrettson

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

  1. ““[T]he purpose of a preliminary hearing before the magistrate is for the purpose of determining whether there is probable ground to believe the accused guilty. The magistrate, therefore, can only commit the accused for appearance before the grand jury, subject to bail under certain circumstances, or discharge him. That hearing is primarily for the benefit of the accused, insuring him against being committed for action by the grand jury on charges which are groundless. Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal, Orfield, page 67. There is no reason why the accused should be required to enter a plea at that hearing. Hochheimer, Criminal Law, 2d Ed., Section 72; Smith v. State, 210 Md. 440 , 443, 124 A.2d 839 .””
    5 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.