Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 421 So. 2d 512

How courts have described this case

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

  • refusing to apply a new rule retroactively because it would entail hearings with “evidence possibly long since destroyed, misplaced, or deteriorated” and witnesses who “may not be available or [whose] memory might be dimmed”
  • refusing to apply a new rule retroactively because it would entail hearings with “evidence possibly long since destroyed, misplaced, or deteriorated” and witnesses who “may not be available or [whose] memory might be dimmed”
  • refusing to apply a rule in part because it “would not enhance the reliability of the fact-finding process [and] . . . has no bearing on guilt and did not involve an attack on the fairness of the trial”
  • \It was reasonable... to rely upon [the old] law. That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting [exclusively] prospective application of the new rule.\
  • \[T]he standards established in Witt are fully applicable to noncapital cases.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McDonald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.