Court of Appeals of Alaska· 12/16/1983
State v. Contreras
Citations
- 674 P.2d 792
- 1983 Alas. App. LEXIS 386
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- evidentiary privileges should be established by rule after notice and comment by interested parties; a judicial opinion is a poor vehicle for the articulation of a new privilege
- there is a “great deal of controversy as to precisely what hypnotism is.”
- there is a \great deal of controversy as to precisely what hypnotism is.\
- discussing problems associated with eyewitness identifications
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bryner, Coats, Singleton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. BuellOhio Supreme Court· 1986-02-19· cited 295×
- State v. CoonAlaska Supreme Court· 1999-03-05· cited 132×
- Vivian Sprynczynatyk and Paul Sprynczynatyk, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Appellant/cross-AppelleeEighth Circuit· 1985-09-17· cited 97×
- Thorne v. Department of Public SafetyAlaska Supreme Court· 1989-05-26· cited 90×
- Contreras v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 1986-04-18· cited 69×
- Young v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 2016-06-17· cited 43×
- Harmon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1995-12-22· cited 38×
- Harris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1984-02-24· cited 34×
- Contreras v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1989-01-20· cited 24×
- Russell v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-09-20· cited 22×
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-02-15· cited 19×
- Colgan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-12-20· cited 18×
- Hines v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-08-02· cited 18×
- Skamarocius v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1987-01-09· cited 17×
- J.E.C. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1984-05-11· cited 7×
- Todeschi v. Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo, LLCAlaska Supreme Court· 2017-04-28· cited 6×
- In re L.G.T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1999-08-19· cited 6×
- Ansay v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1986-03-21· cited 3×
- Babcock v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1984-06-22· cited 3×
- Sawyer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 2010-01-07· cited 2×
Cites
50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 6,537×
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 6,066×
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 5,425×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- Frye v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1923-12-03· cited 4,204×
- United States v. Melvin TelfaireD.C. Circuit· 1972-06-19· cited 477×
- United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. TurnerD.C. Circuit· 1971-01-29· cited 450×
- State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court· 1983-01-11· cited 423×
- People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1982-03-11· cited 314×
- State v. HurdSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1981-07-14· cited 277×
- United States v. Manuel P. AmaralNinth Circuit· 1973-12-03· cited 237×
- State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1980-05-16· cited 207×
- State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.Arizona Supreme Court· 1982-05-04· cited 181×
- People v. HughesNew York Court of Appeals· 1983-07-05· cited 170×
- State v. EricksonAlaska Supreme Court· 1978-01-20· cited 169×
- United States v. Isiah Williams and Michael ManningSecond Circuit· 1978-09-20· cited 141×
- Commonwealth v. NazarovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-10-29· cited 141×
- United States v. Michael P. FosherFirst Circuit· 1979-01-15· cited 128×
- State v. MenaArizona Supreme Court· 1981-02-03· cited 122×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.