Williamson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * Where a person convicted of a criminal offense or offenses is to be resentenced, as was the case here, the presence of the defendant is as necessary as it was at the time of the original sentence. Price v. Zerbst, D.C.N.D.Ga. 1920, 268 F. 72 ; Crowe v. United States, 6 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 526 ; Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 567 , certiorari denied 336 U.S. 926 , 69 S.Ct. 647 , 93 L.Ed. 1088 ; Rule 43, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. No valid sentence has yet been imposed on Williamson. The prior judgment, and orders with respect thereto not heretofore vacated, should be vacated and Williamson should be brought before the district court and a sentence given upon the jury verdict as might originally have been given, within the twenty-year maximum. So that this may be done the cause is “Reversed and remanded.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roberts v. State · State v. Davis

2. ““It may be that the two offenses defined by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 (a), of entering a bank with the intent to commit a felony, for which the penalty is twenty years, and the completed offense of robbing the bank, for which the penalty is twenty years, are merged. The opinion in the Prince case so indicates and its language is quoted in the opinion in the recent case of Heflin v. United States [ 358 U.S. 415 ], 79 S.Ct. 451 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 407 ]. However, the opinion in the Heflin case restates the principle that Congress intended to prohibit the pyramiding of sentences. We do not think it was the purpose of the Congress to impose a greater penalty for entering a bank with the intent to commit a felony where no felony was in fact committed than could be imposed where the unlawful entry was followed by the larceny of the property of the bank. We think this view is in harmony with both the Prince case and the Heflin case. See Counts v. United States, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 603 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Leather

3. “where an invalid sentence on one count is vacated and a valid sentence on another count is permitted to stand, the presence of the prisoner is not required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Shubbie