United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1342 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 622 · 28 U.S.C. § 593 · 3 U.S.C. § 102 (Presidential Transition Act of 1963)
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. Goodwin · Grunewald v. United States
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knew, and admits that it knew, every fact necessary to every charge that has been brought against defendant Williams before the original indictment was filed, and indeed, the [prosecutor] formed the intent before proceeding to trial on the false statements charges alone that he would later charge Williams with all of the charges he now faces”
1 later decision 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.