United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.3d 1321 · 1996
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Hughes (2005), United States v. White (2005)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on United States v. Olano · Kotteakos v. United States · Wheat v. United States · United States v. Atkinson · United States v. Ross
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“preserve issues that they raise without any need for renewed objections at trial, just so long as the movant has clearly identified the ruling sought and the trial court has ruled upon it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“must have sufficiently broad discretion to rule without fear that it is setting itself up for reversal on appeal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the Government must demonstrate that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. An appellate court does not inquire into whether absent the error sufficient evidence existed to convict, but rather whether we believe it highly probable that the error did not affect the judgment. Thus, we must be able to say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. We have identified three decisive factors in making this determination: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error; (2) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error; and (3) the closeness of the case.”
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.