Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 371 Ark. 550 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Sweet v. State (2011), Koster v. State (2008)

39 state decisions

290200720102020decided

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 Serfass v. United States · Crist v. Bretz · Downum v. United States · Flanagan v. State · Williams 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “no person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense. See Williams [v. State, 371 Ark. 550 , 268 S.W.3d 868 (2007) ]. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants from: “(1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” Hughes v. State, 347 Ark. 696, 702 , 66 S.W.3d 645, 648 (2002). “A former prosecution is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense ... [if] [t]he former prosecution was terminated without the express or implied consent of the defendant after the jury was sworn ... unless the termination was justified by overruling necessity.” Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-112(3) (Repl.2006) (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision 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.