Schnabel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2022
10 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 Christie v. State · Nelson v. State · United States v. RCA Alaska Communications, Inc. · Municipality of Anchorage v. Brown
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before a person is entitled to an instruction on “necessity” there must be “some evidence” in the record that the action which the person took was necessary, i.e., that he had no other alternative, to avoid an irreparable injury which,' under the circumstances, outweighed any injury likely to result from the action taken.... Schnabel had an adequate remedy at law. Consequently, he was not faced with irreparable injury. If Schnabel disagreed with the Commissioner’s rejection of his application to cross the stream, the Administrative Procedure Act provides an informal speedy remedy for resolving that disagreement. See AS 44.62.330-630. There is nothing in the instant record which would support a finding that recourse by Schnabel to either his administrative or judicial remedy would have been insufficient to resolve any “necessity” with which he was faced.”
2 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.