Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 A2D 471 - Williamson v. United States

Williamson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011

13 state decisions

80199220002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Cortez · Adams v. Williams · Delaware v. Prouse · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

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

  1. “the police are justified in stopping witnesses only where exigent circumstances are present, such as where a crime has recently been reported.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(i) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor or felony, involving danger of forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or danger to property, has just been committed near the place where he finds such person, and (ii) the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has knowledge of material aid in the investigation of such crime, and (iii) such action is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identification of such person, or to obtain an account of such crime.” Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 110.2(1)(b) (1975), quoted in 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.2(b), at 24 (3d ed. 1996).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Id. at 476 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). We also voiced our agreement with Professor LaFave's characterization of the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure: Any authority to detain witnesses must be”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.