United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 224 · 1977
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Haymond (2019), Smith v. United States (1978)
20 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · United States v. Marion · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina
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.
“[A] parolee may not collaterally attack a conviction upon which a decision to revoke parole or other action taken by the Commission was based. See Frick v. Quinlin, 631 F.2d 37, 39 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Williams, 558 F.2d 224, 227-28 (5th Cir.1977). “Obviously a parolee cannot relitigate issues determined against him in other forums, as in the situation presented when the revocation is based on conviction of another crime.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 490 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Antonelli v. Lappin“whether due process is violated when, although a detainer has lawfully been filed against the prisoner, the delay in execution actually impairs his ability to contest the fact of violation or to present mitigating evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“even if [a parolee] admits the [parole] violation, he may be prejudiced if delay has impaired his ability to present evidence of mitigating circumstances that might affect the decision to incarcerate him”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tuttle v. US Parole
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.