Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 939 F.2d 721 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

939 F.2d 721 · 1991

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Olano (1995), United States v. DePriest (1993)

53 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

8301991200020102020decided

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. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on United States v. Tucker · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Patterson v. United States · Luce v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden

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

  1. “By bringing out the fact of the prior conviction during [ ] direct examination of [defendant], [defendant's] attorney deprived the court and the government of a last chance to reverse their pre-stated positions.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'the mandatory minimum sentence provided by a particular statute must be pronounced even if the defendant falls under a lower sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Defendant] is in no position to complain. It was his counsel who, perhaps for some strategic purpose, first introduced the fact of the prior conviction into evidence.”
    3 later decisions 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.