LaParle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 196 Cal. App. 3d 461 - People v. Kahanic · H.A.M.S. Co. v. Electrical Contractors of Alaska, Inc. · 64 Wash. App. 480 - State v. Webb · Knix v. State · Strother 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“, even as between the two spouses. That is, it is legally possible in. Alaska for a spouse to commit theft of marital property. 'LaParle, 957 P.2d at 384 . For these same reasons, we conclude that it is legally possible for a spouse to be convicted of eriminal mischief for vandalizing marital property. However, this does not completely resolve the matter, for the criminal mischief statute also requires proof that the defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. State“property in which [another] person has an interest which the defendant is not privileged to infringe, whether or not the defendant also has an interest in the property”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. State“clearly indicated their intention [that] co-owners of property should be as well protected against depredations by other co-owners as they are against outsiders”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. State
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.