Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2013
13 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 Maal v. State · Seymore v. State · Bell v. State · Wasson v. State · Koganaluk 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in Bell indicated that the seope of [mitigator] (d)(8) is sufficiently broad to encompass behavior that is merely impulsive or the result of situational stress. Lee's reliance on this mitigating factor was based exclusively on a showing of impulsive character and financial and emotional stress. Lee did not present any evidence indicating that he acted out of a mistaken belief that his conduct was necessary. We therefore conclude that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Lee's conduct was the result of inter nal compulsion within the meaning of [{miti-gator (d)(8) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. State“The definition of “prior conviction” in AS 12.145(a)(2) includes only prior offenses with “elements substantially identical to those of a felony under Alaska law.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the definition does not focus on the actual conduct of the defendant in the prior case. Rather, AS 12.55.145 requires similarity between the elements of the former offense and the current law. There is simply no indication that the definition [of “prior conviction” in AS 12.55.145] contemplates a case-by-case evaluation of whether a defendant’s prior conduct might constitute a felony under current law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walsh v. State“. The defendant in Lee was convicted of first-degree assault for shooting and severely wounding a police officer who arrived at Lee's home to investigate the neighbors' report of a disturbance. 5 Lee argued that mitigator (d)(8) applied to his offense because he was under emotional stress at the time of the offense and had acted out of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith 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.