Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2016
15 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 Campbell v. State · Hunt v. State · 213 So. 2d 274 - Edwards v. State · Bussart v. State · 196 So. 2d 19 - Gaynor 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * "As to the first point, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support a determination by the jury either that appellant obtained the $700.00 by fraud or trickery with the preconceived purpose of converting the money to his own use and to deprive the owner thereof, thereby vitiating any consent of the owner to the taking, Campbell v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 359 , 20 So.2d 127 ; Bussart v. State, 1937, 128 Fla. 891 , 176 So. 32 ; or that the consent was not as broad as the taking in that Everett only permitted appellant to retain the money for the purpose of blessing it and returning it to Everett in a few days, yet appellant either intended at the time of receiving the money, or decided thereafter to convert it to some unauthorized use with intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stanton v. State
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.