Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 So. 2d 44 - Williams v. State

669 So. 2d 44 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Brown v. State (2004), 688 So. 2d 791 - Simon v. State (1997)

1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

210199620002010decided

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 Caldwell v. Mississippi · Foster v. State · In re Vey · 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State · Richardson v. Mt. Adams Furniture

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

  1. “discovered since the trial, that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, that it is material to the issue, and that it is not merely cumulative, or impeaching”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Failure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues, or errors either in fact or in law which were capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal, regardless of whether such are based on the laws and the Constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A court will usually deny a new trial based on recanting testimony where it is not fully satisfied regarding the truthfulness of the testimony. The determina tion should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Recanting testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable and should be approached with suspicion.”
    3 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.