Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Stordahl v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (1977), Wright v. State (1992)
129 state decisions
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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 803 (§ 10 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 23 U.S.C. § 101 (America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012) · 23 U.S.C. § 138 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 7 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Sierra Club v. Morton
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he concept of standing has been interpreted broadly in Alaska, favoring increased accessibility to judicial forums. In Coghill v. Boucher, 511 P.2d 1297, 1303 (Alaska 1973), we noted that “[i]n the past . .. this court has departed from a restrictive interpretation of the standing requirement.” Whether a party has standing to obtain judicial resolution of a controversy depends on whether the party has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. In our recent decision of Wagstaff v. Superior Court, Family Division, 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 (Alaska 1975), we described this requirement in terms of “injury-in-fact,” and explained that its purpose is to assure the adversity which is fundamental to judicial proceedings.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he only relevant inquiry in determining questions of standing is adversity, . Since the requirement of adversity has no constitutional base in Alaska, our requirement that it exist must be characterized as a judicial rule of self-restraint — as must the entire doctrine of standing itself. We adhere to this rule because the very nature of our judicial system renders it incapable of resolving abstract questions or of issuing advisory opinions which can be of any genuine value. The adversity requirement ensures that a question presented for our review is one that is appropriate for judicial determination, [citations omitted]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The proper construction of the term `general circulation' requires consideration of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the publication. A newspaper which contains news of general interest to the community and reaches a diverse readership is one of general circulation.”
3 later decisions 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.