State v. Zerkel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[when a defendant asserts that the Alaska Constitution affords greater protection than the corresponding provision of the Federal Constitution, it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate something in the text, context, or history of the Alaska Constitution that justifies this divergent interpretation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Aaron v. City of Ketchikan · Vaska v. State

2. ““In distinguishing Halper , which involved a civil penalty rather than a tax, the [United States Supreme Cjourt explained: ‘... tax statutes serve a purpose quite different from civil penalties, and Halper's method of determining whether the exaction was remedial or punitive “simply does not work in the case of a tax statute.” Subjecting Montana’s drug tax to Halper’s test for civil penalties is therefore inappropriate.’ [Kurth.] Similarly, the license revocation here at issue is fundamentally different from a tax and serves a different purpose. Thus, Baldwin’s attempt to apply the analysis in Kurth Ranch strictly is improper.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McClendon · State v. Zimmerman

3. “a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not be fairly characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hansen · State v. McClendon