Williamson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 192 · 1962
Citation profile
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Sanchez-Lopez (1989), United States v. Kenny (1981)
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Russell v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · Wilson v. United States · Hartman v. United States · Keck v. United States
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Appellant’s failure to renew the motion to sever] suggests that the prejudice now asserted to have resulted from the joinder may not have seemed so substantial to appellant in the context of [the] trial . . ..””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whoever, knowingly, with intent to defraud the United States, imports or brings into the United States marihuana contrary to law, or smuggles or clandestinely introduces into the United States marihuana which should have been invoiced, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such marihuana after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or whoever conspires to do any of the foregoing acts, shall be imprisoned * * *. “Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.””
1 later decision 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.