Soper v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018
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 State v. Andrews · Frink v. State · State v. Andrews · 428 F. Supp. 579 - United States v. Braniff Airways, Inc. · Lerchenstein 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Whe are satisfied that the limited exception for lewd disposition recognized in Burke should be extended to cover the testimony of the complaining witness' sisters who were allegedly seduced under substantially similar cireumstances at roughly the same age as the complaining witness. We stress that it is membership in a limited class of individuals having highly relevant common characteristics that servels] to differentiate the testimony in this case from that offered in Bolden, Pletnikoff, and Moor [cases where this court held that evidence of other sexual offenses should not have been admitted]. As the state points out, the prosecution's witnesses did not accuse Soper of isolated incidents of sexual abuse. Each testified to a continued pattern of sexual abuse taking place over a substantial period of time. Each was seduced at approximately the same age, under virtually identical circumstances. While some of the incidents appear remote when viewed in isolation, the common experiences of each of these young women establishes a striking pattern of behavior that seems to occupy the middle ground between evidence of character ... and”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carpentino v. State“The prosecuting attorney, the witness under examination, interpreters when needed, and a deputy clerk of the court for the purpose of recording the proceedings may be present while the grand jury is in session. No persons other than the jurors shall be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boggess v. State“[t]he general rule in Alaska is that events, occurrences, or happenings before the grand jury will not invalidate a subsequent indictment unless they contributed in some way to the return of that indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wassillie 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.