Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 460 So. 2d 778 - May v. State · 616 So. 2d 298 - Noe v. State · Peterson v. State · Mease v. State · 544 So. 2d 816 - Butler v. State
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems to us that [there are] two competing interests: a defendant’s right to have the jury instructed on his theory of defense and the State’s interest in prohibiting the jury from returning what the State perceives as being a compromised verdict in cases where the evidence might be insufficient to support the greater charge but sufficient to support a lesser offense which is not a lesser-included offense of the greater charge. As between these two competing interests, it is clear the defendant should prevail.”
2 later decisions 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.