United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Boylan (1990), United States v. Ortiz (1992)
85 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Blumenthal v. United States · Johnson v. Righetti · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp.
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) is substantively correct; (2) was not substantially covered in the charge given to the jury; and (3) concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to effectively present a given defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`When a non-frivolous suggestion is made that a jury may be biased or tainted, the district court must make an adequate inquiry into whether the alleged tainting incident occurred and whether it was prejudicial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Leaper“Ordinarily, we will not take notice of an error that is not preserved unless the error amounts to 'plain error,' Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b)....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.