Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Watson v. State (1980), 551 So. 2d 1094 - Bui v. State (1988)
25 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 Francis v. Henderson · Davis v. United States · Coleman v. Alabama · Vernon v. State · Bell 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(We hold that henceforth a failure by the defendant in a criminal case to raise proper objection to the composition of a grand or petit jury, including, but not limited to, the constitutional ground of the jury selection process, before entering upon the trial of the case on its merits, constitutes a waiver of his right to do so, subject, of course, to the recognized exceptions of fraud and as to matters which were not known, or by the exercise of due diligence, could not have been known, before trial." Williams v. State , Ala., 342 So.2d 1328 at 1330 (1977).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Griffin v. State · Clisby v. State“"A motion challenging the composition of a grand jury, petit jury, or qualifications of individual jurors, filed after the commencement of trial, must allege, and proof must show, that grounds for the motion were not known to the defendant before he went to trial, or that he could not have known them by exercising due diligence."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Watson v. State · Malloy v. State““ ‘If the defendant or his attorney knew about the matter of drawing the jury, or, by the exercise of due diligence, could have ascertained the facts, he cannot for the first time raise the question [of improperly drawn venire] by motion for a new trial.’ ” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Malloy 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.