Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 201 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992), Felker v. State (1984)
8 federal appellate · 201 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun 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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nstances of specific misconduct may not be used to impeach a witness' character or veracity unless the misconduct has resulted in the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rationale of Terry v. Ohio, [ 392 U. S. 1 (88 SC 1868, 20 LE2d 889)] and its progeny allows investigating officers who possess articulable suspicion of criminal activity to detain a suspect for a limited period in order to identify the suspect, frisk him if necessary, and conduct limited questioning. [Cit.] Detention beyond that authorized by Terry is an arrest, and, to be constitutional, such an arrest must be supported by probable cause. [Cit.] Probable cause to arrest exists where, based on objective facts and circumstances, a man of reasonable caution would believe that a crime has been or is being committed. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-76 (69 SC 1302, 93 LE 1879) (1949).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Two or more offenses may be joined in one charge when the offenses are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan and where it would be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without permitting evidence of the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pace 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.