Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 544 So. 2d 782 - Williams v. State

544 So. 2d 782 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
2
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 667 So. 2d 1242 - Ballenger v. State (1995), 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State (1994)

1 federal appellate · 102 state decisions

5701989199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Young · Caldwell v. Mississippi

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

  1. “discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value.”
    40 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “to parole. Allowing argument or testimony regarding the possibility of the defendant some day being paroled is in effect inviting the jury to speculate how ten years in the future the parole board may exercise its legislatively granted discretionary authority. This would introduce into the sentencing proceedings an”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[I]t is sufficient that the circumstances resulted in such a manner as to effect a kidnaping as opposed to an actual intent to kidnap, i.e. it is not necessary to establish the mental state of intent by direct evidence.”
    4 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.