State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Feltrop (1991), Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc. (1995)
2 federal appellate · 26 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
Relies on State v. Hutchinson · State v. Shuls · State v. Lindner · Bennette v. Hader · State v. Griffin
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.
“[T]here is no eyewitness as to what happened in that bathroom that the State can produce for you today. There’s only two people back there that knows exactly what happened and can tell you — who knows exactly what happened back there.” In State v. Rothaus, 530 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. banc 1975), this Court held that the following remarks by a prosecutor would not reasonably be construed as reference to defendant’s failure to testify:”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he phrase res gestae has long been not only entirely useless, but even positively harmful. It is useless, because every rule of evidence to which it has ever been applied exists as a part of some other well-established principle and can be explained in the terms of that principle. It is harmful, because by its ambiguity it invites the confusion of one rule with another and thus creates uncertainty as to the limitations of both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“cover[s] different hearsay exceptions having diverse rationale” and thus "lack[s] analytical precision.” State v. Williams, 673 S.W.2d 32 , 34 (Mo.1984) (en banc) (footnote omitted). In addition, the court has given “a rather wide application to the excited utterance exception and held that statements which are essentially testimonial may qualify as excited utterances if made under conditions of stress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stidum v. Trickey
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.