State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 376 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Lott (1990), State v. Landrum (1990)
3 federal appellate · 376 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Dusky v. United States · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““You must understand * * * that a jury recommendation to the Court that the death penalty be imposed is just that, a recommendation, and is not binding upon the Court. The final decision as to whether the death penalty shall be imposed upon the defendant rests upon this Court after the Court follows certain additional procedures required by the laws of this State. “Therefore, even if you recommend the death penalty, the law requires the Court to decide whether or not the defendant, Michael F. Beuke, will actually be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Beuke““State-induced suggestions that the sentencing jury may shift its sense of responsibility for the imposition of the death penalty create a risk of substantial unreliability as well as potential bias in favor of death sentences.” Id. at 34 , 23 OBR at 29, 490 N.E. 2d at 922 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Durr“whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.