Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably State v. Delva (1991), Stewart v. State (1982)
55 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 Canron, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp. · American States Insurance v. Piasecki · 365 So. 2d 701 - Castor v. State · 383 So. 2d 1186 - Beugnet v. Beugnet · Clark 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... While there are several broad references to an affirmative duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on the elements of the crime charged [citations omitted], the fact is that every such omission or misstatement which has actually been found to constitute fundamental error concerned a critical and disputed jury issue in the case.... ... [W]hen it does not appear that the subject of the defective charge was an issue at the trial, our courts have repeatedly declined to reverse in the absence of timely objection.... [[Image here]] ... [S]everal courts presented with the identical issue involved here have squarely held, as we do, that the omission of the intent element from a robbery instruction is not fundamental error in the absence of a real dispute on that question.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[F]undamental error occurs ... only when an omission or error in the definition of a crime is pertinent or material to what must actually be considered by the jury in order to convict.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he fact is that every such omission or misstatement[6] [in jury instructions] which has actually been found to constitute fundamental error concerned a critical and disputed jury issue in the case.”
2 later decisions 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.