State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably United States v. Harris (1976), Sanden v. Mayo Clinic (1974)
4 federal appellate · 29 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 47 Ill. 2d 510 - The People v. Montgomery · Luck v. United States · Ashton v. Anderson · 58 Cal. 2d 229 - People v. Perez · State v. Santiago
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unprofessional conduct to ask a question which implies the existence of a factual predicate which the examiner cannot support by evidence. * * * * * * d. Unfounded question. The attempt to communicate impressions by innuendo through questions which are answered in the negative, for example, "Have you ever been convicted of the crime of robbery?" or "Weren't you a member of the Communist Party?" or "Did you tell Mr. X that * * *?" when the question has no evidence to support the innuendo, is an improper tactic which has often been condemned by the courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the ‘rap sheet’ relied upon failed to provide a factual predicate for the cross-examination pursued, the questions asked concerning nonexistent convictions were both improper and prejudicial.” 210 N.W.2d at 26 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Johnson
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.