Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 427 S.W.2d 868 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
January 2007
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2007

15 state decisions

9019671970198019902000decided

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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Norvell v. State of Illinois · Rudolph v. Alabama · Hintz v. Beto · United States v. Di Canio

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

  1. “We fail to see what more the able trial judge in the case at bar could have done under the circumstances. An appellant is not entitled to reversal merely because of the death of the court reporter. Here the trial judge availed the appellant and his counsel of three different opportunities to demonstrate why the statement of facts as finally prepared and approved were not a full, accurate and complete transcription of the court reporter’s notes taken at the trial. He certainly had his day in Court upon the settlement of the record. In absence of a showing made that the record before us is not what occurred at the trial and that the appellant’s rights were prejudiced, we overrule appellant’s first ground of error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * It appears that at the time appellant was satisfied with the action of the Court, and he is in no position now to complain. Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 416 . We do note that appellant’s counsel filed a written motion for mistrial following the conclusion of the arguments. Such motion clearly came too late. * * * ””
    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.