Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 F.2d 548 - Williams v. United States

Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

402 F.2d 548 · 1968

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Evitts v. Lucey (1985), Rodriquez v. United States (1969)

54 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

460196819701980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Anders v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Douglas v. People of State of California · United States v. Robinson · Coppedge v. United States

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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he failure of counsel to take the simple steps required to file a notice of appeal when instructed by his client to do so would * * * [constitute] “such an extraordinary inattention to a client’s interests as to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, cognizable under Section 2255.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We hold Williams was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the critical time between sentence and the expiration of time to appeal and that he was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to appellate review of his conviction.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he objective of granting a defendant an appellate review of which he has been unconstitutionally deprived is generally accomplished by means of vacating the sentence and remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing, the time for appeal then commencing to run from the date of the resentence.”
    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.