United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.2d 136 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Grissom (1981), State v. Gleason (1990)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Grin v. Shine · Lott v. United States · United States v. Evans · United States v. Rodriguez
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce convicted, whether as a result of a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or ... [trial], convictions stand on the same footing....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a defendant is advised of the charge against him and asked to plead to it, his response that he is ‘guilty’ constitutes an admission. He has made a most solemn statement that he has acted as charged. If, on a subsequent occasion (perhaps in a civil action predicated on the acts charged in the criminal case), the same person denies having done those acts, he is subject to impeachment by his prior statement (plea of guilty) inconsistent with the later denial. A plea of ‘not guilty’ admits nothing; it is not inconsist ent with the later denial of the acts charged, even though he be convicted in the criminal case. (Whether or not the conviction could be used would depend upon the laws made and provided for the use of criminal convictions as evidence which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case.) A plea of nolo contendere performs a specific function. As a statement of the defendant for which he may, in another proceeding or on another occasion be called upon to account, it admits nothing. It is the same as a plea of not guilty. However, in the criminal proceeding then pending, the plea of nolo contendere is taken as a complete admission of guilt leading to a judgment of conviction.” (Emphasis in original) 642 F.2d at 139 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness,”
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.