10 Haw. App. 491 - State v. Dowsett’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Rogan (1999), State v. Fukusaku (1997)
24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Oregon v. Kennedy · Wardius v. Oregon · State v. Kennedy · State v. Sugimoto · 5 Haw. App. 127 - State v. DeCenso
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he obligation to seek justice is paramount and the prosecution’s duty under HRPP Rule 16 must be diligently observed. Discovery is at the foundation of the fact finding and truth seeking process. Faithful adherence to discovery obligations serves the public interest: Discovery provides the basic information which is necessary to expedite trials and plea decisions in an already overburdened court system and promotes fairness in the adversary system.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tetu. · State v. Augafa“(9) SANCTIONS. (i) If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery, grant a continuance, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. David“it cannot be controverted that 'the trial court is ... empowered to dismiss under HRPP Rule 16(e)[ (9)(i) ] for non-compliance [with] Rule 16.' ” Id. at 495 , 878 P.2d at 742 (quoting State v. Marzo, 64 Haw. 395, 397 , 641 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1982) (footnote omitted)) (brackets in original). However, this court further held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Augafa
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.