Williams v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he singular form of ‘photograph’ read in conjunction with the term ‘any’ clearly indicates that the Legislature intended prosecution for each differing photograph.”
• finding no error in the introduction of other pornographic images when jury was only informed about their existence
• “The singular form of ‘photograph’ read in conjunction with the term ‘any’ clearly indicates that the Legislature intended prosecution for each differing photograph.”
• “The' singular form of ‘photograph’ read in conjunction with' the term ‘any’ clearly indicates ‘that the Legislature intended prosecution for each differing photograph”
• \The singular form of 'photograph' read in conjunction with the term 'any' clearly indicates that the Legislature intended prosecution for each differing photograph.\
• \The singular form of 'photograph' read in conjunction with the term 'any' clearly indicates that the Legislature intended prosecution for each differing photograph.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ratliff v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-07-28· cited 108×
• Quisenberry v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2011-03-24· cited 101×
• Sisson v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2006-06-19· cited 97×
• Hunt v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2010-03-18· cited 79×
• State v. Olsson
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2014-04-21· cited 55×
• Sanders v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2010-01-21· cited 39×
• Combs v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-07-05· cited 33×
• Goben v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2016-12-15· cited 22×
• Williams v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-11-22· cited 20×
• Peterka v. State
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 2015-06-11· cited 16×
• Rea v. State
  Supreme Court of Arkansas· 2015-11-19· cited 10×
• State v. Gillespie- Sexually exploitative
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2013-12-30· cited 3×
• Payne v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2019-12-18· cited 3×
• Filzek v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 2009-08-19· cited 2×
• State v. Olsson and Ballard
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2014-04-21· cited 2×
• Jenkins v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 2008-12-19
• CASTANEDA (ANTHONY) VS. STATE
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2016-06-16

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bell v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 1,300×
• Sanabria v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1978-06-14· cited 1,038×
• Commonwealth v. Benham
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1991-09-26· cited 794×
• Commonwealth v. Sawhill
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1983-11-23· cited 310×
• United States v. William Esch, United States of America v. Linda Esch
  Tenth Circuit· 1988-01-04· cited 112×
• Vineyard v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1998-01-07· cited 112×
• Chumbler v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1995-08-24· cited 86×
• Commonwealth v. Phon
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2000-04-20· cited 68×
• State v. Mather
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2002-06-28· cited 60×
• State v. Morrison
  Utah Supreme Court· 2001-08-21· cited 45×
• Young v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1998-05-21· cited 28×
• Melson v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1989-06-29· cited 22×
• Burk v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-02-04· cited 11×