Williams v. Clarke’s Empirical Analysis
40 F.3d 1529 · 1994
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), Davis v. Executive Director of Department of Corrections (1996)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Fay v. Noia
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“what was actually and properly considered in the decision-making process was 'so overwhelming' that the decision would have been the same even absent the invalid factor.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sidebottom v. Delo · State v. Ryan“Some of the facts supported by the evidence which would allow this Court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of James Thimm was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence are as follows: a) The death of James Thimm occurred over several days while James Thimm was tied and chained in a hog confinement shed; b) Michael W. Ryan on numerous occasions sodomized James Thimm with a shovel handle and directed others to do the same; c) Michael W. Ryan upon several occasions whipped and beat James Thimm and directed others to do the same; d) Michael W. Ryan shot the fingertips of James Thimm with a .22 caliber pistol and directed others to do the same; e) Michael W. Ryan skinned James Thimm while he was alive; f) Michael W. Ryan broke James Thimm’s arm and directed others to assist in that effort; g) Michael W. Ryan broke James Thimm’s legs and directed others to assist with this; h) Michael W. Ryan, by force, crushed James Thimm’s ribcage[,] which was the final act that caused his death; i) There is also some evidence that Michael W. Ryan either removed or amputated James Thimm’s penis and testicles or directed that this be done by others; j) Michael W. Ryan wired or chained James Thimm to a farrowing crate while all of these cruel acts were taking place or directed that others do this to James Thimm; k) Michael W. Ryan caused James Thimm to suffer further humiliation by directing him to pe”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under the second prong of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2523(1)(d). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that, absent Supreme Court authority to the contrary, this court is authorized to use the constitutional harmless error standard when a state sentencing court has considered an unconstitutionally vague portion of an aggravating circumstance. The Williams court then went on to conclude, in that case, that the sentencing court's consideration of the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.