Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · United States v. Lane · 608 So. 2d 784 - Fotopoulos v. State · 622 So. 2d 991 - Ellis v. State · Rodriguez 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The “connected acts or transactions” requirement set forth in rule 3.150(a) requires that the charges joined for trial must be considered in an episodic sense.... [T]he crimes in question must be linked in some significant way.... [C]rimes linked in an episodic sense generally fall into two categories: first, those that occurred during a crime “spree” interrupted by no significant period of respite; and second, situations in which one crime is causally related to the other, even though there may have been a significant lapse of time between crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“For joinder to be appropriate, the separate crimes must be linked in some significant way. “This can include the fact that they occurred during a ‘spree’ ... or the fact that one crime is causally related to the other.” A trial court must find that a meaningful relationship exists between the charges of separate crimes before allowing them to be tried together.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hartman 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.