Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 971 So. 2d 581 - Williams v. State

971 So. 2d 581 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 681 So. 2d 521 - Hoops v. State · 697 So. 2d 777 - Coleman v. State · 249 So. 2d 414 - Curry 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The critical inquiry in deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment not withstanding the verdict (JNOV) is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed. If the evidence fails to meet this test, it is insufficient to support a conviction. The legal sufficiency of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Strickland test requires a showing that counsel’s performance was sufficiently deficient to constitute prejudice to the defense. The defendant has the burden of proving both prongs. A strong but rebuttable presumption, that counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, exists. The defendant must show that but for his attorney’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that he would have received a different result in the trial court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “We have held that where contraband is found upon premises not in the exclusive control and possession of the accused, additional incriminating facts must connect the accused with the contraband. Where the premises upon which contraband is found is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband.”
    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.