Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 KAN 911 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

52 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000)

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. · State v. Ivory

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

  1. “[A] prosecutor does not shift the burden of proof by pointing out a lack of evidence to support a defense or to corroborate a defendant's argument regarding holes in the State's case.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[w]here conduct and not merely speech is involved, the United States Supreme Court requires that 'the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hen the defense creates an inference that the State's evidence is not credible because the State failed to admit a certain piece of evidence, the State may rebut the inference by informing the jury that the defense has the power to introduce evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.