Williams v. Haviland’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.3d 527 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2025
6 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] constitutionally deficient indictment is subject to harmless-error review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mandates that whatever charging method the state employs must give the criminal defendant fair notice of the charges against him to permit adequate preparation of his defense.” Id. The Ohio Court of Appeals correctly found this argument unwarranted because”
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.