Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 542 S.W.2d 3 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
9
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Cunningham v. State (1989), 172 W. Va. 491 - State v. Zaccagnini (1983)

28 state decisions

15019761980199020002010decided

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 State v. Taylor · State v. Burns · State v. Whitley · State v. Gordon · Normandale 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The use of the word ‘any’ indicates that each separate substance possessed is an unlawful act. If the legislature had intended that the possession of several Schedule I substances would only constitute a single offense, it would have used words such as ‘one or more substances’ to evidence that intent.” 542 S.W.2d at 5 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The evidence does not support an entrapment instruction for two related reasons. First, entrapment involves a situation where the intent to commit the crime is placed into the perpetrator’s head by the conduct of the police. It presupposes that in fact the defendant intended to commit the crime, but that that intent was the product of the police actions. Defendant’s evidence was that he never formed any intent to commit the crime. He was not therefore entrapped into committing the crime. Secondly, the defense normally is inconsistent with the defendant’s denial of the charge. “Possession” requires that the defendant intentionally and knowingly have the drug in his possession. Defendant’s evidence was that he did not have such intentional, knowing possession. The instruction on entrapment was properly refused. (citations omitted).”
    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.