Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 P2D 278 - Sakeagak v. State

Sakeagak v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2023

16 state decisions

1001998200020102020decided

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 McClain v. State · State v. Chaney · State v. Wortham · United States v. Newman · Hawley 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[In Riley v. State, 720 P.2d 951 (Alaska App.1986), ... this court rejected a proposed 60-year benchmark sentence for first-degree murder-primarily because 99-year sentences for first-degree murder have consistently been upheld by the Alaska appellate courts. Id., 720 P.2d at 952 . Riley does not establish the rule that first-degree murderers can always receive 99-year sentences, nor does Riley free sentencing judges from the obligation to base sentences on a careful consideration of the Chaney sentencing criteria. See Riley, 720 P.2d at 952 ; State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 443-44 (Alaska 1970); AS 12.55.005. However, after Riley, a defendant who challenges a 99-year sentence for first-degree murder must show some reason to believe that his offense is mitigated or that his background is atypically favorable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The guiding principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and implement the intent of the legislature. When a statutory provision is part of a larger framework, even seemingly unambiguous language must be interpreted in the context of the other portions of the [whole]. Millman v. State, 841 P.2d 190, 194 (Alaska App.1992).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “may be improperly swayed by the opinion of a witness who is presented as an experienced criminal investigator.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.