State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A “cardinal” canon of statutory construction is that this court “cannot change the language of the statute, supply a want, or enlarge upon it in order to make it suit a certain state of facts.” State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 271 , 978 P.2d 700, 709 (1999) (quoting State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326 , 926 P.2d 599, 617 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (quoting State v. Meyer, 61 Haw. 74, 78 , 595 P.2d 288, 291 (1979))). This is because “[w]e do not legislate or make laws.” Du-doit, 90 Hawai'i at 271 , 978 P.2d at 709 (citations omitted).... [S]ee also id. at 270 n. 8, 978 P.2d at 708 n. 8 (“[A]s Justice Ramil himself [has] aptly observed, as author of this court’s opinion in State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 30 , 960 P.2d 1227, 1230 (1998), ‘[i]t is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that, where the terms of a statute are plain, unambiguous and explicit, we are not at liberty to look beyond-that language for a different meaning. Instead, our sole duty is to give effect to the statute’s plain and obvious meaning.’” (Citations omitted.) (Some brackets added and some in original.)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Plichta · State v. Haugen

2. “... HRS § 706-606.5(1) states that the repeat offender statute applies “[notwithstanding ... any other law to the contrary. Although HRS § 706-622.5 does contain a similar’ phrase, the language of the first-time drug offender statute, as compared to the foregoing wording of the repeat offender statute, is markedly narrower in scope: “Notwithstanding any penalty or sentencing provision under part IV of chapter 712.... ” ... Thus, inasmuch as the plain and unambiguous language of HRS § 706-606.5 requires application of the repeat offender statute over “any other law to the contrary,” we hold that the circuit court did not err in sentencing Smith as a repeat offender pursuant to HRS § 706-606.5.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kamanao · KEWALO OCEAN ACTIVITIES v. Ching

3. “(1) [Notwithstancfog-any penalty or sentenc ing-gr-ovision under-part IV of chapter 712,] Notwithstanding section 706-620(3),.... [[Image here]] (2) A person eligible under subsection (1) [shall] may be sentenced to probation to undergo and complete a [drug] substance abuse treatment program[J if the court determines that the person can benefit from substance abuse treatment and, notwithstanding that the person would be subject to sentencing as a repeat offender under section 706-606.5, the person should not be incarcerated in order to protect the public. ...”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kamanao · KEWALO OCEAN ACTIVITIES v. Ching