Pride v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2021
16 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 Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co. · Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co. · Tucker v. Kerner · Sea Lion Corp. v. Air Logistics of Alaska, Inc. · Tolstrup v. Miller
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.
“(internal quotation marks omitted)); Pride v. Harris, 882 P.2d 381, 385 (Alaska 1994) (Indeed, every judge, when he hears a case or writes an opinion must form an opinion on the merits and often an opinion relative to the parties involved. But this does not mean that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Labrenz v. Burnett“A judicial officer may not act in a matter in which [[Image here]] (9) the judicial officer feels that, for any reason, a fair and impartial decision cannot be given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Disqualification was never intended to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Labrenz v. Burnett
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.