Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2018
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 Austin v. State · Roman v. State · Brezenoff v. State · Amidon v. State · Karr 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.
“Thomas has been a commercial fisherman in Alaska for sixteen years. This appears to be his primary occupation. On the other hand, Thomas’ current offenses are closely tied to his occupation as a fisherman, and he has three prior commercial fishing violations for not having a commercial license. It appears to us that the trial court could reasonably conclude that some restriction on Thomas’ ability to fish commercially was related to his rehabilitation and was necessary to protect the public. However, since a restriction on Thomas’ ability to fish commercially restricts his primary means of livelihood, we believe that the restriction must be particularly carefully scrutinized to make sure that it is narrowly drawn. It seems clear to us that the special condition of probation which prevents Thomas from engaging in any aspect of commercial fishing is far too broad.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ostrosky v. State“[C]onditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public and ... not unduly restrictive of liberty.” Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235,1240 (Alaska 1977); Edison v. State, 709 P.2d 510, 511 (Alaska App.1985). Conditions wMch restrict constitutional rights are subject to special scrutiny to determine whether the restriction serves the goals of rehabilitation of the offender and protection of the public. Roman, 570 P.2d at 1241 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dawson 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.