Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1979–1997 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Edwards v. State, 842 P.2d 1281, 1285 (Alaska App.1992) (interviewee in custody under Hunter analysis when officer threatens arrest unless interviewee responds to officer’s questioning). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences1996That’s all necessary for security, and [the] defendant was in his own home. [There is] no evidence of a significant show of force that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Mr. McCracken was in custody under a Hunter analysis[.] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888, 895 (Alaska 1979) (adopting an objective test for determining custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). 1996That’s all necessary for security, and [the] defendant was in his own home. [There is] no evidence of a significant show of force that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Mr. McCracken was in custody under a Hunter analysis[.] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888, 895 (Alaska 1979) (adopting an objective test for determining custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1996That’s all necessary for security, and [the] defendant was in his own home. [There is] no evidence of a significant show of force that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Mr. McCracken was in custody under a Hunter analysis[.] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888, 895 (Alaska 1979) (adopting an objective test for determining custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). 1996That’s all necessary for security, and [the] defendant was in his own home. [There is] no evidence of a significant show of force that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Mr. McCracken was in custody under a Hunter analysis[.] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888, 895 (Alaska 1979) (adopting an objective test for determining custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1995Thus, under Hunter , the question of whether Todd’s dual conviction for robbery and felony murder violates the federal double jeopardy clause is to be answered by asking another question: Did the Alaska legislature intend for defendants to be separately punished for both felony murder and the underlying felony? 6 Todd asserts that the Hunter analysis has been altered by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Dixon, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). 1995Thus, under Hunter , the question of whether Todd’s dual conviction for robbery and felony murder violates the federal double jeopardy clause is to be answered by asking another question: Did the Alaska legislature intend for defendants to be separately punished for both felony murder and the underlying felony? 6 Todd asserts that the Hunter analysis has been altered by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Dixon, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hintz v. State
green
2 sentences1985In Hintz v. State, 627 P.2d 207 (Alaska 1981), the Alaska Supreme Court applied the Hunter factors to a similar set of facts. 1985In Hintz v. State, 627 P.2d 207 (Alaska 1981), the Alaska Supreme Court applied the Hunter factors to a similar set of facts. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
1 sentence1979We will not apply the second requirement, that the issue on appeal be dispositive of the case, since Hunter’s plea was entered before this second requirement was fully explained in Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage, id. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.