Scroggins 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 a California statute was sufficiently dissimilar from the corresponding Alaska statutes because the Alaska statutes were “considerably narrower” than California’s statute
• holding that Alaska’s sexual abuse of a minor statutes were not sufficiently similar to California’s statute because, while the California statute prohibited “the touching of any body part of the child,” the Alaska statutes focused on specific parts of the body

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Timothy v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2004-04-30· cited 6×
• State v. Delagarza
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2000-09-15· cited 5×
• Michael Steven Cunningham v. State of Alaska
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2023-08-25

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Martinez
  California Supreme Court· 1995-11-02· cited 279×
• People v. Sharp
  California Court of Appeal· 1994-11-14· cited 27×
• People v. Diaz
  California Court of Appeal· 1996-01-23· cited 19×
• Garroutte v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1984-05-18· cited 17×
• Flink v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1984-05-11· cited 15×
• Borja v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1994-12-16· cited 14×
• People v. O'CONNOR
  California Court of Appeal· 1992-08-07· cited 13×
• Harlow v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1991-11-08· cited 7×
• Burnette v. Municipality of Anchorage
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1991-12-20· cited 6×