350 So. 2d 708 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

cited by 24 later decisions

states following

October 2012

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2012

2 federal appellate · 21 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 Mason v. State · Lee v. State · Terry v. State · Brasher v. State · Harden 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“" The issue presented is, does a plea of not guilty, where the defendant offers no other defense, and where the witness made a positive identification based upon her observation of defendant at the first robbery, place his identity in issue, so as to justify admission of a separate and distinct subsequent offense. The answer is no. Admission of evidence of the subsequent robbery is reversible error. " (Emphasis supplied.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Bolden v. State · 369 So. 2d 881 - Brown v. State
“Merely entering a plea of not guilty without presenting any witnesses, or an alibi, or other defense, did not place identity in issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 511 So. 2d 951 - Beavers v. State · 409 So. 2d 955 - Thomas v. State
“"The State had a lawful right to establish the identity of defendant as the robbery culprit by competent evidence, even though redundant. The fact that she saw him a week later, when he again robbed her, was admissible even though she was positive of the first identification. This second observation of defendant tended to strengthen the first identification and tended to impress the jury that she was not mistaken. The fact that the second observation of defendant was under circumstances involving a second offense of robbery against the same victim did not preclude the State from offering it to establish identity, which burden the State carried."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 627 So. 2d 1134 - Howell v. State · 421 So. 2d 1338 - Player 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.