People v. Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the defendant’s recovery memory that he was at home when the larceny at issue occurred was not newly discovered evidence so as to warrant a new trial but, rather, was evidence of facts that were known to the defendant, were forgotten, and were not diligently presented
• finding that the defendant's recovery memory that he was at home when the larceny at issue occurred was not newly discovered evidence so as to warrant a new trial but, rather, was evidence of facts that were known to the defendant, were forgotten, and were not diligently presented

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Hirsch
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1994-01-28· cited 133×
• People v. LeMorte
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1919-06-18· cited 29×
• People v. Dabney
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1924-12-16· cited 20×
• Selwyn Operating Corp. v. Commissioner
  Board of Tax Appeals· 1928-04-16· cited 17×
• The People v. Ogbin
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1938-02-16· cited 16×
• People v. Harris
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1914-04-23· cited 11×
• State v. Sonnenschein
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1916-03-16· cited 10×
• State v. Daymus
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-04-25· cited 9×
• People v. Wright
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1919-04-15· cited 3×
• State v. Evans
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1925-10-10· cited 3×
• Knight v. Citizens Coach Co.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1940-10-28· cited 3×
• The People v. Frank
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1927-10-22· cited 2×
• Lipscomb v. State
  Court of Claims of Illinois· 1952-12-19