Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 788 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 788 · 1973

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 1986
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Roviaro v. United States · United States v. Russell · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Lopez v. United States

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

  1. ““As a general rule in eases of this kind, the government must identify an informant who participates with undercover agents in transactions which are for the purpose of obtaining evidence of crimes and whose testimony might be relevant to the defense. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); United States v. Martinez, 487 F.2d 973 (10th Cir. 1973); Garcia v. United States, 373 F.2d 806 (10th Cir. 1967). In addition to requiring the disclosure of the informant’s identity, the trend of the decisions has been, upon demand of the defendant, to require the prosecution to produce the informer at the time of trial. If the informer is not available, it is incumbent upon the government to show reasonable diligence in its effort to produce him.””
    3 later decisions 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.