Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 574 So. 2d 876 - Williams v. State

574 So. 2d 876 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2017

11 state decisions

60199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Carnegie v. United States · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Scharffe v. Perkins

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

  1. “[I]n a case alleging ineffectiveness of counsel through a conflict of interest from successive representation, mere proof that a criminal defendant's counsel previously represented a prosecution witness is insufficient to establish inconsistent interests, and a defendant must show either that his counsel's earlier representation of the witness was substantially and particularly related to counsel's later representation of the defendant, or that counsel actually learned particular confidential information during prior representation of the witness that was relevant to the defendant's case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, . . . [he] must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests,”
    2 later decisions 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.