Love v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial judge was required to decide the probable impact of newly-discovered evidence based on his view of its credibility
• \'The double jeopardy clause of the Alaska Constitution prevents an increase in any sentence that has been 'meaningfully imposed.' \
• “The power to grant a new trial is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision is subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• March v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1993-10-01· cited 32×
• State Ex Rel. Smith v. McBride
  West Virginia Supreme Court· 2009-03-12· cited 18×
• Christensen v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1993-01-08· cited 11×
• Curtis v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1992-05-15· cited 11×
• Smith v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1995-03-31· cited 10×
• Grant v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2016-08-19· cited 6×
• Mancini v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1992-09-25· cited 4×
• Hopkins v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 1994-09-06· cited 4×
• Douglas v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2009-09-04· cited 3×
• Twogood v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2008-11-21· cited 2×
• Byford v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2015-06-26· cited 2×
• Trumbly v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2016-09-02· cited 2×
• Lampley v. Municipality of Anchorage
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2007-05-04· cited 2×
• Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2025-08-22