Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 446 F.2d 486 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

446 F.2d 486 · 1971

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson (2001), Willis v. Zant (1983)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

2001971198019902000decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 332

Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Ker v. State of California · Harris v. United States · United States v. Freed · United States v. Miller

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

  1. ““Appellant next contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury. Appellant, a Negro, was tried by an all-white jury____ He objects, however, to the fact that although there were three Negroes on the twenty-eight-man jury venire, all three were peremptorily stricken by the Government prosecutor without cause or explanation, in violation of his Sixth Amendment Rights. Such a contention conflicts with the holding of Swain v. State of Alabama ... in which the Supreme Court upheld the system of peremptory challenges, explicitly finding merit in the State’s argument that the system affords ‘a suitable and necessary method of securing juries which in fact and in the opinion of the parties are fair and impartial.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.