Morris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2012
8 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
Relies on Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · McClain v. State · Waters v. State · Kay v. United States · Amidon v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Even though the defendant understood the indictment to charge him as a principal, not an accessory] there is no distinction between princip[al]s and accomplices under Alaska law.... The indictment, therefore, was sufficient to put Morris on notice that he could be found liable under evidence showing that he was a principal or under evidence showing that he only acted as an accomplice. See Seharver v. State, 561 P.2d 300, 302 (Alaska 1977). Morris does not contend that he was misled as to what facts the state intended to prove, only that he thought those facts were going to be used under instructions which would omit mention of accomplice liability. Thus, we conclude that there was no error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State“all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act constituting the crime or, though not present, aid and abet in its commission, [were to] be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Andrew v. State
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.