State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Vestal (1971), State v. Covington (1976)
175 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'An appellate court is not required to, and should not, assume error by the trial judge when none appears on the record before the appellate court.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““Here, in contrast to State v. Wright, supra, the offense was committed not in a dimly lighted room but in a service station open for business; the victim of the crime was not aroused from sleep but was the service station attendant who had sold a bottled drink to the robber and had observed him standing in the station for a substantial period of time prior to the robbery, and who also observed him for ‘three or four minutes’ after the robbery was commenced by the sticking of a pistol into the victim’s ribs. Only ten weeks elapsed between the robbery and the in-court identification. There is nothing whatever in the record to contradict or cast doubt upon any of this evidence as to the conditions under which Wood observed the robber at the time of the crime. To use again language from the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wade, supra, the State has established ‘by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification was based upon observation of the suspect other than the lineup identification.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nothing else appearing, the admission of incompetent evidence is not ground .for a new trial where there was no objection at the time the evidence was offered. State v. McKethan, 269 N.C. 81 , 152 S.E. 2d 341 ; State v. Camp, 266 N.C. 626 , 146 S.E. 2d 643 ; Lambros v. Zrakas, 234 N.C. 287 , 66 S.E. 2d 895 ; State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168 , 66 S.E. 2d 667 ; State v. Hunt, 223 N.C. 173 , 25 S.E. 2d 598 ; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 27; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 18.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ball · State v. Noell
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.