Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Nooner v. State (1995), Echols v. State (1996)
2 federal appellate · 51 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 · Pulley v. Harris · Griffin v. Wisconsin · Duckworth v. Eagan · California v. Prysock
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state has asked this court to conduct a proportionality review which we have done in the past. See Sanders v. State, 317 Ark. 328 , 878 S.W.2d 391 (1994); Parker v. State, 300 Ark. 360 , 779 S.W.2d 156 (1989); Hill v. State, 289 Ark. 387 , 713 S.W.2d 233 (1986). Comparative proportionality review is not constitutionally mandated in every case where the death sentence is imposed. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 , 104 S. Ct. 871 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1984). Our Legislature, by enacting recent sentencing procedures, has provided a statutory check on arbitrariness by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the jury is provided with information on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and with standards in the use of that information. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-103 , 5-4-603 — 605 (Repl. 1993). Additionally, our review upon appeal includes a review of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented to the jury and a harmless error review of the jury’s findings. See § 5-4-603.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Echols v. State
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.