Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 594 F.2d 1258 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

594 F.2d 1258 · 1979

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
8
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Frazer v. United States (1994), State v. Hutchins (1981)

43 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

330197919801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113

Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Brown v. Craven

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

  1. “client-attorney relationship had been a stormy one with quarrels, bad language, threats and counter threats.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"[F]orced into a trial with the assistance of a particular lawyer with whom he was dissatisfied, with whom he would not cooperate, and with whom he would not, in any manner whatsoever, communicate.... .... "We think, however, that to compel one charged with grievous crime to undergo a trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in irreconcilable conflict is to deprive him of the effective assistance of any counsel whatsoever."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “where the request for change of counsel comes during the trial, or on the eve of trial, the Court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, refuse to delay the trial to obtain new counsel and therefore may reject the request.”
    2 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.