United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
684 F.2d 296 · 1982
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Ross (1996), 14 Cal. 4th 367 - Cowan v. Superior Court (1996)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 3281 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on Rochin v. People of California · United States v. Lovasco · Mooney v. Holohan · Texas v. Louisiana · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the present case [the defendant] received the charge he requested, and he was convicted of the lesser included offense contained therein. Murder in the first degree is a capital offense for which there is no statute of limitations. If the court had not given the requested lesser included offense charge, [the defendant] would have been in the unenviable position of facing a verdict of guilty or not guilty on a capital offense. The requested charge was certainly in [the defendant’s] best interest under the circumstances. [The defendant] requested the charge, did not object to the charge, was convicted under the charge and, in all probability, benefited from the charge. He cannot now complain of the result and his actions obviously constitute a waiver of the time limitation contained in [18 U.S.C.] § 3282.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Timoteo · State v. Yount“The statute of limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 is not jurisdictional. It is an affirmative defense that may be waived.”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110 , 103 S.Ct. 739 , 74 L.Ed.2d 961 (1983) (citations omitted). In his brief, Green makes the rather curious assertion that,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statute of limitations is a defense and must be asserted on the trial by the defendant in criminal cases.”
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.