Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
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 Franks v. Delaware · Michel v. United States · McClain v. State · State v. Dunlop · Williams 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.
“Davis next contends that the double jeopardy clause of the Alaska Constitution prohibits separate convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, AS 11.71.080(a)(1), and knowingly maintaining a dwelling used for keeping or distributing cocaine, AS 11.71.040(a)(5). We find no merit to this claim. While Davis' violation of both statutes resulted from a single course of action, the offenses differ markedly in the conduct that they prohibit and in the specific social interests that they seek to preserve. Davis' double jeopardy rights were not infringed by the entry of separate convictions and sentences on these charges. 13”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rofkar v. State · Rofkar v. State“(a) [A] person commits the crime of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree if the person [[Image here]] (2) manufactures or delivers, or possesses with the intent to manufacture or deliver, one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one ounce or more containing a schedule VIA controlled substance; (3) possesses [[Image here]] (F) one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one pound or more containing a schedule VIA controlled substance; or (G) 25 or more plants of the genus cannabis; [[Image here]] (5) knowingly keeps or maintains any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other structure or place that is used for keeping or distributing controlled substances in violation of a felony offense under this chapter or AS 17.30...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rofkar v. State“[The moving party bears the initial burden of alleging specific facts, supported by affidavits or other documents, that would entitle the party to relief.... Only [when] the pleadings [present] a genuine dispute as to material facts is an evidentiary hearing required. 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marshall 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.