Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 23 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Insurance (2010), State v. Mainaaupo (2008)
3 federal appellate · 23 district · 21 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · 60 Cal. 2d 92 - Tunkl v. Regents of University of California · Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co. · State v. Arceo · Au v. Au
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A deceptive act or practice is '(1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances where (3) the representation, omission, or practice is material.' The representation, omission, or practice is material if it is likely to affect a consumer's choice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether information is likely to affect a consumer's choice is an objective inquiry, 'turning on whether the act or omission is likely to mislead consumers as to information important to consumers in making a decision regarding the product or service.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[“] The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de wo.[”] State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)[ (internal quotation signals omitted) ]. Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established rules: When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists.... In construing an ambiguous statute, “[t]he meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning.” HRS § 1-15(1) [ (1993) ]. Moreover, the courts may resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent. One avenue is the use of legislative history as an interpretive tool. Gray [v. Admin. Dir. of the Court], 84 Hawai'i [138,] 148, 931 P.2d [580,] 590 [ (1997) ] (quoting State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 18-19 , 904 P.2d 893, 903-04 (1995)) (brackets and ellipsis points in original) (footnote omitted). This court may also consider “[t]he reason and spirit of the law, and the cause which induced the legislature to enact it ... to dis”
3 later decisions 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.