Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 SW2D 710 - Williams v. Commonwealth

Williams v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2018

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

501986199020002010decided

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 Merritt v. Commonwealth · Travis v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “[t]he indictment specified that Mr. Williams committed the robbery while armed.” Id. at 713 . This suggests that Williams was indicted under KRS 515.020(l)(b). However, Williams also objected to a definition of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “This, however, does not distinguish it from second degree robbery in which the threat of physical force is the gravamen. A response of perceiving danger is quite real under threat; however, such cannot serve to convert something merely speculated upon (a weapon or instrument) into established existence.... Without an instrument’s ever being seen, an intimidating threat albeit coupled with a menacing gesture cannot suffice to meet the standard necessary for a first-degree robbery conviction_ Without something tangible backing up the threat, words do not reach beyond the status of threats and as such are insufficient to sustain submission under first-degree robbery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(1) A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft and when he: (a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (b) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or (c) Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any person who is not a participant in the crime.”
    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.