Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. Levia (1982), Peterson v. State (1996)
3 federal appellate · 100 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Simmons v. United States · South Dakota v. Opperman · Bell v. United States · Cooper v. State of California · 53 Ill. 2d 62 - People v. Prim
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A person who, by means of fire or explosive, knowingly or intentionally damages: (1) A dwelling of another person without his consent; (2) Property of any person under circumstances that endanger human life; or (3) Property of another person if the pecuniary loss is at least twenty thousand dollars; commits arson, a class B felony. However, the offense is a class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any other person.” Ind. Code § 35-43 -l-l(a).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. State · Grassmyer v. State““The Canty [United States v. Canty, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 103 , 469 F.2d 114 ], case establishes that a defendant cannot be convicted on several counts when he takes money from one bank. The above language leaves open the question of whether one can be convicted of more than one count when taking money from several different persons in the same transaction under a general robbery statute. Nevertheless, that Circuit looks to whether ‘stripped down to the basic reality, the robbery ... constituted a unitary transaction.’ United States v. Hopkins, (1972) 150 U.S.App.D.C. 307 , 314, 464 F.2d 816, 823 . See also United States v. Fleming, (7th Cir. 1974) 504 F.2d 1045 .” 395 N.E.2d at 247 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. An attempt to commit a crime is a felony or misdemeanor of the same class as the crime attempted. However, an attempt to commit murder is a Class A felony." Ind. Code § 385-41-5-1 (a) (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions 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.