6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rutherford v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . 2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . | 4 | 4 |
Williams v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . 2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2014See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322-23 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). 58 . - Our conclusion today that Judd was erroneous is bolstered by changed conditions. 2014See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322-23 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). 58 . - Our conclusion today that Judd was erroneous is bolstered by changed conditions. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smartgreen2 sentences2012The Judd rule is the Alaska Supreme Court's last pronouncement on this question, and this is the rule that the supreme court applied in State v. Smart (Smart II), 202 P.3d 1130, 1138-39 (Alaska 2009), its most recent decision addressing the question of retroactivity. 2012The Judd rule is the Alaska Supreme Court's last pronouncement on this question, and this is the rule that the supreme court applied in State v. Smart (Smart II), 202 P.3d 1130, 1138-39 (Alaska 2009), its most recent decision addressing the question of retroactivity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Judd v. State
green
2 sentences2023Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Fletcher’s federal constitutional claim but we REVERSE the dismissal of Fletcher’s state constitutional claim and we remand this case to the superior court for further litigation of the retroactivity question and a resentencing for Fletcher, should this retroactivity question be decided in Fletcher’s favor. 239 Id. at 278 . 240 Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971); Charles, 287 P.3d at 788 . – 80 – 2745 2023Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Fletcher’s federal constitutional claim but we REVERSE the dismissal of Fletcher’s state constitutional claim and we remand this case to the superior court for further litigation of the retroactivity question and a resentencing for Fletcher, should this retroactivity question be decided in Fletcher’s favor. 239 Id. at 278 . 240 Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971); Charles, 287 P.3d at 788 . – 80 – 2745 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Charles v. State
green
2 sentences2023Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Fletcher’s federal constitutional claim but we REVERSE the dismissal of Fletcher’s state constitutional claim and we remand this case to the superior court for further litigation of the retroactivity question and a resentencing for Fletcher, should this retroactivity question be decided in Fletcher’s favor. 239 Id. at 278 . 240 Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971); Charles, 287 P.3d at 788 . – 80 – 2745 2023Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Fletcher’s federal constitutional claim but we REVERSE the dismissal of Fletcher’s state constitutional claim and we remand this case to the superior court for further litigation of the retroactivity question and a resentencing for Fletcher, should this retroactivity question be decided in Fletcher’s favor. 239 Id. at 278 . 240 Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971); Charles, 287 P.3d at 788 . – 80 – 2745 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . 2014See Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-53 (Alaska 1971) (explaining that a new rule has been given retroactive effect "[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function," but noting that analyzing the other Judd factors is necessary because the impact on the truth-finding process at trial is a "question of probabilities" (quoting Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148 , 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967))). 57 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Linkletter v. Walker
red
2 sentences2012Initially, the federal test for retroactivity was the same as our Judd test-because the Judd rule of retroactivity was taken directly from the rule formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1741 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), and reiterated two years later in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). 2012Initially, the federal test for retroactivity was the same as our Judd test-because the Judd rule of retroactivity was taken directly from the rule formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1741 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), and reiterated two years later in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Smart v. State
green
1 sentence2012In prior appellate litigation, the State has taken the position that AS 12.72.010(7) was intended to codify the Teague rule of retroac-tivity, and thus the Teague test is the governing rule of retroactivity for post-convietion relief litigation in Alaska. 19 As this Court noted in Smart I, 146 P.3d at 29 , the conflict between the Judd rule and the provisions of AS 12.72.010(7) potentially raises a question under the doctrine of separation of powers: specifically, whether the legislature's enactment of rules governing the retroactivity of judicial decisions improperly encroaches on a matter en | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Schriro v. Summerlin
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 355-58 , 124 S.Ct. 2519 . 2009Id. at 355-58 , 124 S.Ct. 2519 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Fresneda v. State
green
2 sentences1971Fresneda v. State, 458 P.2d 134 , 143 n. 28 (Alaska 1969). 1971After conducting a lengthy suppression hearing, the trial court denied Judd's motion. [2] Fresneda v. State, 458 P.2d 134 , 143 n. 28 (Alaska 1969). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.