Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 SO2D 106 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably 336 So. 2d 1133 - Cooper v. State (1976), 67 Wis. 2d 204 - State v. Calhoun (1975)

26 state decisions

20019721980199020002010decided

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 Williams v. Florida · Baldwin v. New York Williams · 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · 241 So. 2d 744 - Ramirez v. State · Cacciatore 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is our view that the administration of the discovery rule in question requires a careful and discerning employment of the court's discretion. It should not be artificially or technically administered, but should be considered in the light of the objective of the whole trial procedure, which is basically to obtain a just decision based upon all of the facts. Hence, we feel, as was suggested in Sheridan v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 258 So.2d 43 , that upon the failure of a party to make discovery [sic] the court should make a careful inquiry as to why the disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice to the other party and the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by some intermediate procedure. While the rule, 1.220(g), supra, describes the possibility that the court may prohibit witnesses from testifying, we feel that this should be done only under the most compelling circumstances and where the omission can not be otherwise remedied... ."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.