State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2016
23 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 Keeble v. United States · Graves v. United States · Berger v. New York · State v. Crescenzo · State v. Quattrocchi
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No trial justice may be expected to be endowed with that quantum of total recall which would enable him or her at the conclusion of the charge to be certain that all necessary points have been covered accurately and completely. At this point it is incumbent upon trial counsel to point out to the judge specifically and clearly those areas in which corrections or further instructions may be needed.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rodriquez · State v. Lynch““We note that Rhode Island had not theretofore recognized the plain-error rule. Indeed, in promulgating rules of criminal procedure, Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which deals with plain error, was specifically deleted to conform to Rhode Island case law. See Super.R.Crim.P. 52, Reporter’s Notes. See also State v. Quattrocchi, 103 R.I. 115, 124 , 235 A.2d 99, 104 (1967). Thus, errors not asserted in the trial court will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances wherein a defendant has ‘suffered an abridgment of his basic constitutional rights.’ State v. Frazier, 103 R.I. 199, 201 , 235 A.2d 886, 887 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1033 , 88 S.Ct. 1430 , 20 L.Ed.2d 292 (1968). Even courts in those jurisdictions wherein Rule 52(b) is in force have frequently asserted that it should not be applied in such a way as to destroy Rule 30. E.g., United States v. Graydon, 429 F.2d 120 , 123-24 (4th Cir. 1970); United States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 731 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 982 , 87 S.Ct. 1286 , 18 L.Ed.2d 229 (1967).” Id., 432 A.2d at 670 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ballard
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.