Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 P2D 269 - State v. Carlson

State v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2021

20 state decisions

70197619801990200020102020decided

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 Bruton v. United States · O'Donoghue v. United States · United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · 13 Cal. 3d 937 - People v. Orin · United States v. Cox

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

  1. “We are also concerned that a judge's involvement as a plea negotiator would detract from the judge's neutrality, and would present a danger of unintentional coercion of defendants who could only view with concern the judge's participation as a state agent in the negotiating process. (citation omitted) [4]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We recognize that the only substantial difference between Alaska Criminal Rule 11(e)(1) and the Federal criminal rule of the same number is that the federal rule contains the explicit prohibition against judicial participation in bargaining while the Alaska rule does not. The policies we have discussed persuade us that this difference should not be dispositive. [7]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]lthough the court may judicially determine the disposition of a charge based on the evidence, the law and its sentencing power, it may not, in effect, usurp the executive function of choosing which charge to initiate based on defendant's willingness to plead guilty to a lesser offense.”
    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.