Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Sanford v. State (1998), Jones v. State (1999)
102 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 In re Geschke · Dixon v. State · Earl v. State · Dixon v. State · Passley v. State
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, he: (1) Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to commit it; or (2) Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it; or (3) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to do so.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. State · Britt v. State“This court has said that the granting of immunity is not a constitutional right but merely one authorized by statute. Fears v. State, 262 Ark. 355 , 556 S.W.2d 659 (1977). It is within the prosecutor’s discretion to grant immunity when it is in the public’s interest. Id. The reason for granting immunity is to aid in the prosecution of criminals by inducing witnesses to testify. Id. Williams fails to cite any criminal case law or statute in support of his argument that his constitutional rights were infringed, and this failure to adduce apposite authority or otherwise to make a convincing argument is sufficient reason to affirm the trial court’s ruling on this point. Hall v. State, 326 Ark. 318 , 933 S.W.2d 363 (1996); Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857 , 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flanagan v. State“A motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Peeler v. State, 326 Ark. 423 , 932 S.W.2d 312 (1996). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Dixon v. State, 310 Ark. 460 , 839 S.W.2d 173 (1992). Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is sufficient to support a conviction if the evidence is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other. Peeler v. State, supra; Dixon v. State, supra. Only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Moore v. State, 315 Ark. 131 , 864 S.W.2d 863 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Darrough 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.