Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 Haw. 319 - State v. Jim

State v. Jim’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2022

8 state decisions

40200420102020decided

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 United States v. O'Brien · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Procunier v. Martinez · Cox v. State of Louisiana · Cox v. State of Louisiana

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

  1. “[p]ursuant to HRS § 701-106 (1993), the [S]tate's criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawai#i.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy. The control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure this necessary order. A restriction in that relation, designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, and not susceptible to abuses of discriminatory application, cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which, in other circumstances, would be entitled to protection. One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red light because this was thought to be a means of social protest. Nor could one, contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly. Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement. A group of demonstrators could not insist upon the right to cordon off a street, or entrance to a public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not agree to listen to their exhortations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person's own conduct or the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable if: (a) Either the conduct or the result which is an element of the offense occurs within this State[.] [[Image here]] (5) This State includes the land and water and the air space about the land and water with respect to which the State has legislative jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.