Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 F.2d 603 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

705 F.2d 603 · 1983

Citation profile

138
cited by 138 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

103 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Jacobson v. United States (1992), United States v. Bilzerian (1991)

103 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

61019831990200020102020decided

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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 203 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Hampton v. United States · United States v. White

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

  1. “'[i]t is sufficient if the defendant is of a frame of mind such that once his attention is called to the criminal opportunity, his decision to commit the crime is the product of his own preference and not the product of government persuasion.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “defendant's predisposition is not to be assessed 'as of that time when he committed the crime,'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “defined broadly to include 'the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received' " (quoting Gorman , 807 F.2d at 1305 )); United States v. Williams , 705 F.2d 603 , 623 (2d Cir. 1983) ("Corruption of office occurs when the officeholder agrees to misuse his office in the expectation of gain, whether or not he has correctly assessed the worth of the bribe.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.