Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 Ark. 263 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Standridge v. State (2004), Davis v. State (2005)

36 state decisions

2601998200020102020decided

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 Daniels v. State · Dixon v. State · Purifoy v. State · Green v. State · Moore 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 3 , 929 S.W.2d 707 (1996); Penn v. State, 319 Ark. 739 , 894 S.W.2d 597 (1995). 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, 470 , 839 S.W.2d 173 (1992). Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if the trier of fact can reach a conclusion without having to resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other. Id. Only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Moore v. State, 315 Ark. 131 , 864 S.W.2d 863 (1993).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.