State v. Eluska’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 7 state decisions

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.

1. “[W]hen the trial court concludes, as a matter of law, that hunting occurs in an area in which the state has not adopted regulations pursuant to AS 16.05.255(b) providing for subsistence uses and recognizing the subsistence priority, conduct which would otherwise be a violation of a regulation adopted pursuant to AS 16.05.255(a) restricting hunting is justified as a "subsistence use" if the person whose conduct is alleged to have constituted hunting in violation of the regulation believed he or she was taking the game for subsistence uses ( see AS 16.05.940(23)) and was not aware of and did not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his or her taking was not a subsistence use of the game taken. [3]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eluska

2. “[t]he Board of Game shall adopt regulations ... permitting the taking of game for subsistence uses unless the board determines ... that adoption of the regulations will jeopardize or interfere with the maintenance of game resources on a sustained-yield basis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eluska

3. “[t]o do otherwise would be to condone the commission's nonobservance of a valid legislative prerequisite to the exercise of the commission's discretion in matters of local boundary changes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eluska