Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 So. 2d 982 - McWilliams v. State

640 So. 2d 982 - McWilliams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Ball v. State (1997), 710 So. 2d 1276 - Williams v. State (1996)

25 state decisions

160199120002010decided

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 · Chambers v. Maroney · Lockett v. Ohio · United States v. Cronic · Wainwright v. Witt

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

  1. “`In determining whether a veniremember's views might prevent or "substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “`A trial judge's finding on whether or not a particular juror is biased”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “" 'While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice. ' Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala. 1985)] (emphasis in [ Kennedy ]). 'This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments . . . should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.' Johnson v. Wainwright , 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 201 , 98 L.Ed.2d 152 (1987). 'Plain error is error which, when examined in the context of the entire case, is so obvious that failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings.' United States v. Butler , 792 F.2d 1528 , 1535 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , 479 U.S. 933 , 107 S.Ct. 407 , 93 L.Ed.2d 359 (1986). See also Biddie v. State , 516 So.2d 837 , 843 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), reversed on other grounds , 516 So.2d 846 (Ala. 1987)."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.