United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 504 · 1982
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Cauble (1983), United States v. Cole (1985)
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Hamling v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · Berman v. United States · Parr v. United States · Dix v. Georgia
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not mean that the indictment must set forth facts and evidentiary details necessary to establish each of the elements of the charged offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before proceeding to the merits, we should first explain why this criminal defendant is being afforded two opportunities for appellate review. In the first appellate incarnation of U.S. v. Williams, this defendant appeared before us in the role of appellee. As such, he was allowed only to respond to the government’s arguments. If in the earlier appeal Williams had sought to raise the arguments he now brings before us, his cross-appeal would have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction; as the victor in the district court, Williams was not then an aggrieved party entitled to review. Moreover, as the defendant in a criminal action, he could not come before this court in the role of appellant until he had been sentenced.... It was only after the district court’s directed verdict of acquittal had been reversed, the case remanded, and a sentence had been imposed, that Williams could raise the arguments he now urges upon the court in this appeal. Since this is the first time Mr. Williams could appear before us in the role of appellant, we conclude that this case is now properly before us. Having explained why Mr. Williams is getting two bites at the appellate apple, we now move on to the core issues in this appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant’s constitutional right to know what offense he is charged with and his desire to know the evidentiary details of the prosecution’s case.”
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.