414 So. 2d 767 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2010
13 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 347 So. 2d 1132 - State v. Driever · 391 So. 2d 813 - State v. Devito · State v. Guidry
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid detection, apprehension, or prosecution, flees from the state, is outside the state, or is absent from his usual place of abode within the state; or (2) The defendant cannot be tried because of insanity or because his presence for trial cannot be obtained by legal process, or for any other cause beyond the control of the state. The periods of limitation established by Art. 578 shall commence to run anew from the date the cause of interruption no longer exists.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“ample time to locate defendant through the authorities in Oklahoma,”
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.