Lepley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Wesolic v. State (1992), Brown v. State (2000)
38 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 · State v. Erickson · Smith v. State · Benboe v. State · Murray 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] prediction of successful treatment and non-recidivism should only be made when the sentencing court is reasonably satisfied both that it knows why a particular crime was committed and that the conditions leading to the criminal act will not recur — either because the factors that led the defendant to commit the crime are readily correctable or because the defendant's criminal conduct resulted from unusual environmental stresses unlikely ever to recur.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boerma v. State · Smith v. State“can adequately be treated in the community and need not be incarcerated for the full presumptive term in order to prevent future criminal activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Smith v. State“A first felony offender convicted of an offense for which a presumptive term of imprisonment is not specified ... may not be sentenced to a term of unsuspended imprisonment that exceeds the presumptive term for a second felony offender convicted of the same crime unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that an aggravating factor under AS 12.55.155(c) is present, or that circumstances exist that would warrant a referral to the three-judge [sentencing] panel under AS 12 55.165.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pitka 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.