Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 773 SW2D 525 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Narvaiz v. State (1992), Allridge v. State (1991)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

3201988199020002010decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Sykes · Washington v. Davis · Swain v. State of Alabama · Engle v. Isaac

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

  1. “The law requires jurors to use the facts to tailor the punishment to the crime as committed by the guilty defendant. As such, it would be nonsensical to rule that a juror who will use the facts to fit the punishment to the crime is unqualified and thus challengeable for cause—such a juror would be doing exactly what the law requires. ... We hold that a prospective juror is not challengeable for cause because he or she will use the facts to determine punishment. A prospective juror is not challengeable for cause based on inability to consider the full range of punishment so long as he or she can consider the full range of punishment for the offense as defined by law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.