Morgan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2017
2 district · 16 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 S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Haywood v. United States · 15 Cal. 3d 248 - Johnson v. Superior Court · National Capital Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ome defendants [in felony bootlegging cases] will not desire to have the state prove their prior convictions at trial. These defendants have the option of stipulating to the conviction. Mead v. State, 445 P.2d 229, 234 (Alaska 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 855 , 90 S.Ct. 117 , 24 L.Ed.2d 104 (1969).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Prior Convictions. (d) Matters alleged in a notice of denial shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury. If the defendant introduces substantial evidence that he is not the person named in a prior judgment of conviction, that the judgment is not authentic, that the conviction did not occur within the period specified in (a)(1) of this section, or that a conviction should not be considered a prior felony conviction under (a)(2) of this section, then the burden is on the state to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof that two or more convictions should be considered a single conviction under (a)(3) of this section is on the defendant by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huitt v. State“A person who violates AS 04.11.010 in an area where the results of a local option election have, under AS 04.11.490— 04.11.500, prohibited the board from issuing, renewing, or transferring one or more types of licenses or permits under this title in the area is, upon conviction, guilty of a class C felony, if (1) he has previously been convicted of a violation of AS Of 11.010; (2) the sale or offer for sale was made to a person under 19 years of age; or (3) the quantity of alcoholic beverages sold or offered for sale is 12 liters or more of distilled spirits, 24 liters or more of wine, or 45 liters or more of malt beverages. 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tuckfield 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.