Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 198 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 634 So. 2d 618 - Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Herre (1994), 594 So. 2d 292 - Fenelon v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 198 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 Wingo v. Wedding · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon · Alimeg, Inc. v. Shlim · 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the trial court must require the state to explain each one of the allegedly discriminatory challenges.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johans v. State · Taylor v. State“the issue is not whether several jurors have been excused because of their race, but whether any juror has been so excused independent of any other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the trial court found the factor of great risk to many persons based on the fact that several other persons were present in the bank at the time of the robbery. We believe this factual situation, without more, is insufficient to support this factor. This factor is properly found only when, beyond any reasonable doubt, the actions of the defendant created an immediate and present risk of death for many persons. While we agree that Williams’ actions created some degree of risk, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that he created an immediate and present risk to the others in the bank. There is no evi- ■ dence, for instance, of indiscriminate shooting in the direction of bank customers, but only of an intent to kill the bank guard.”
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.