Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 P3D 602 - State v. Murtagh

State v. Murtagh’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2025

9 state decisions

40200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Washington v. Texas · Polk County v. Dodson · Rock v. Arkansas · Dennis v. United States

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In the event a witness asks the prosecutor or defense counsel, or a member of their staffs, whether it is proper to submit to an interview by opposing counsel or whether it is obligatory, the witness should be informed that there is no legal obligation to submit to an interview. It is proper, however, and may be the duty of both counsel in most cases to interview all persons who may be witnesses and it is in the interest of justice that witnesses be available for interview by counsel. It is proper for a prosecutor to tell a witness that he or she may contact the prosecutor prior to talking to defense counsel. The prosecutor may also properly request an opportunity to be present at defense counsel’s interview of a witness, but may not make his or her presence a condition of holding the interview. It is also proper to caution a witness concerning the need to exercise care in subscribing to a statement prepared by another person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is the obligation of the courts to interpret [provisions of the Alaska Constitution granting rights to those accused of crime] so that they may be applied in particular cases and to ensure that the rights they provide are not infringed by any form of state action. `Under Alaska's constitutional structure of government, the judicial branch . . . has the constitutionally mandated duty to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Alaska Constitution, including compliance by the legislature.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “we will consider not only the relative strength of the purpose underlying the statute but also the likelihood that the statute will achieve its purpose and whether the purpose can be achieved in another way that does not impede fair trial rights”
    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.