Williams v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “The [c]ourt ... does not feel ... there is evidence sufficient to submit on the felony murder theory. The ... only evidence ... is that [Williams], together with one John Morgan, set about with an intent and design to cause the death of the deceased in this case, Kerry Brum-mett. The plan was ... that [Brummett] would be killed and his body thrown in the Missouri River. The [c]ourt feels that the kidnapping that took place ... was merely one link in the chain of events that had been planned by [Williams] and John Morgan in committing the offense of murder. Now, the [c]ourt feels ... there is no evidence to the contrary. [Thus,] ... there is no independent collateral felony to draw upon to create the crime of felony murder. And ... the kidnapping ... would just be one of the circumstances planned by the two conspirators to cause the death of Kerry Brummett.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Williams v. Armontrout

2. “denies similarly situated defendants in capital murder cases equal protection of the law in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Delo v. Stokes

3. “despite the Missouri Supreme Court's seemingly inconsistent application of its precedents,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Blair v. Armontrout