State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Allen v. United States · Lowenfield v. Phelps · Jones v. United States · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“against using the following language: 'with the hope that you can arrive at a verdict.' Because jurors are not required to reach a verdict after expressing that they are deadlocked, we believe this language could potentially be construed as being coercive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Taylor“[T]o alleviate problems in future cases where the jury is deadlocked, we would advise trial judges to instruct the jurors not to disclose their numerical division.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Taylor“In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dobbins
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.