Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bloomquist v. State · Hodges v. State · Jennings v. State · Munson v. State · Mirich 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, ... our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kenyon v. State · Simmons v. State“Proof of intent is not a precise process, and it would be impossible to list all the cireumstances from which a jury might properly infer the intent to steal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. State“'Suffice it to say they are numerous, various, and the quantum of proof required necessarily depends on the totality of the circumstances presented.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lane v. State
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.