Stephan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2025
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 · State v. Alex · Murray v. State · Michael v. State · Michael 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.
“[Even though] the “plain meaning” of a term is determined, ... the court should not apply it mechanically. Alaska Public Employees Assoc. v. Fairbanks, 753 P.2d 725, 727 (Alaska 1988). Instead, the court uses a sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation in which it also considers the legislative history of the statute and whether the history reveals a legislative intent and meaning which is contrary to the plain meaning. Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Beltz v. State · Millman v. State“The evidence at trial in support of Count VII of the indictment proved that the defendant made oral contact with the victim’s vaginal area, but that neither the defendant’s mouth nor tongue intruded into the genital opening. The trial court found that such contact, even without actual penetration of the genitals, was sufficient to prove “sexual penetration” through the act of “cunnilingus.” The defendant now argues that in the absence of actual penetration of the opening, “sexual penetration” is not proven under the statute..... ... The trial court instruction stated that “cunnilingus” and “fellatio” do not require penetration of or by any organ, but that mere contact with the mouth and the genitals was sufficient (citation omitted). This court applied the dictionary definition and determined that the meaning[] of “cunnilingus” ... doles] not require penetration by the mouth or tongue, but that contact between the mouth or tongue and the genitals was sufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morgan“genital intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or an intrusion, however slight, of an object or any part of a person's body into the genital or anal opening of another person's body,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fletcher
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.