Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. “... the neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. It is an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them, the neglect to assert a right, as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party and thus operating as a bar in a court of equity.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Romana Balderas v. State of Indiana · Smith v. State

2. “(A) ... Whenever a cause (including for this purpose a petition for post conviction relief) has been tried to the court and taken under advisement by the judge, and the judge fails to determine any issue of law or fact within ninety (90) days, the submission of all the pending issues and the cause may be withdrawn from the trial judge and transferred to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge. (B) ... The time limitation for holding an issue under advisement established under Section (A) of this rule shall not apply where: (1) The parties who have appeared or their counsel stipulate or agree on record that the time limitation for decision set forth in this rule shall not apply; or (2) The time limitation for decision has been extended by the Supreme Court pursuant to Trial Rule 58.1(D).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Erlewein

3. “pursuant to TR. 58.2. See id. at 899-900 . Thereafter, if the judge fails to provide a ruling by the end of the ninety-day time limit, the proper remedy is for the complaining party to seek a writ of mandate from our supreme court to compel the clerk to provide notice and disqualify the judge. Id. If the party fails to follow this procedure and permits the case to proceed to a final judgment, the party is estopped from complaining that the original trial judge maintained jurisdiction over the case. Id. Here, there is nothing in the record indicating that Phares filed a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phares v. State