DeGross v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2000
1 federal appellate · 15 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 Juneby v. State · Juneby v. State · Mutschler v. State · Pears v. State · Davenport 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Pears v. State, 698 P.2d 1198 , 1204-05 & n. 15 (Alaska 1985), the Alaska Supreme Court emphasized the need to restrict sentences of imprisonment to the minimum period necessary to effectuate the goals of sentencing. The court pointed out that lengthy terms of imprisonment cannot properly be imposed for purposes of rehabilitating an offender. The court also made it clear that extremely long prison terms will seldom be necessary for purposes of deterrence or community condemnation. Pears strongly supports the conclusion that, before imposing a term of more than ten years of unsuspended incarceration ... the sentencing court must make an express finding that the offender cannot be deterred or rehabilitated by a lesser term. See Castle v. State, 767 P.2d 219 , 221 & n. 2 (Alaska App. 1989).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bumpus v. State“[Ujnless a measured and restrained approach is taken to the adjustment of presumptive sentences for both aggravating and mitigating factors, then the prospect of attaining the statutory goal of uniform treatment for similarly situated offenders would quickly be eroded, the potential for irrational disparity in sentencing would threaten to become reality, and the revised code’s carefully fashioned system of escalating penalties for repeat offenders would be rendered utterly ineffective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wentz v. State“place a premium on consideration of sentences received by similarly situated offenders who have been convicted of similar offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bumpus 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.