Patrick Joseph DOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee

1981-09-10 · Court of Appeals of Alaska · United States

read the judgment

2What it rests on

4Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19831 judgments6 years silent19891 judgments19921 judgments10 years silent20021 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1983–2002

first 1983 · last 2002 · busiest 1983 (1 judgments)

2002-09-27Charles J. CONRAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, AppelleeCourt of Appeals of Alaska 1992-03-19Haas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida 1989-12-11STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY DAVID WETZEL, Defendant-AppellantHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1983-04-29Jean C. ERICKSON, Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, AppelleeCourt of Appeals of Alaska

What it rests on

1973-05-29Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States 1966-06-13Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States

11 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.