Journey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2010
7 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 Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Sullivan v. Murphy · 17 Cal. 3d 859 - Loder v. Municipal Court · Don Morrow v. District of Columbia, in the Matter of Harry T. Alexander, Judge, District of Columbia Court of General Sessions · United States v. McLeod
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“William Journey was convicted of disorderly conduct after pleading no contest to the charge; he received a suspended imposition of sentence [SIS] and was placed on probation. After successfully completing his probation, Journey moved to have his conviction set aside in accordance with the provisions of AS 12.55.085(e). At the evidentiary hearing on his motion, Journey requested [the district court] ... to expunge all records relating to his arrest and conviction. Journey asserted that he had originally understood that his record would be expunged upon completion of the suspended imposition of sentence; Journey testified that he had been hampered in attempting to secure employment because of his arrest record. [The district court] ... set aside Journey’s conviction but declined to order his record expunged. The judge concluded that the suspended imposition of sentence statute did not expressly authorize the court to order Journey’s record expunged and that the court had no inherent authority to issue such an order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Journey v. State“In our view, however, this case requires no definitive resolution of the inherent authority issue. Even assuming that Alaska courts have inherent power to order criminal records expunged, we believe that this power could not properly be exercised in Journey’s ... case. [[Image here]] In short, whatever inherent authority to expunge criminal records Alaska courts might possess by virtue of their expressly granted powers to preside over criminal cases, invocation of that authority would have amounted to an abuse of discretion in the specific circumstances of Journey’s ... case[ ].[ 4 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Journey v. State“would be justified only upon a further showing that less drastic remediessuch as limiting, regulating, or enjoining misuse or improper dissemination of the disputed criminal recordscould not cure or prevent the threatened harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Breazeale
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.