Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 Haw. 396 - State v. Sunderland

State v. Sunderland’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2020

7 state decisions

40200720102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 47 U.S.C. § 231

Relies on Roe v. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Wisconsin v. Yoder

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

  1. “The appellate court ... need not consider a point that was not presented in the trial court in an appropriate manner.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “HRS § 712-1249 falls squarely within the scope of permissible governmental regulation, consonant with the rule enunciated in Smith. HRS § 712-1249 is a neutral law of general applicability to the extent that it purports to prohibit, without exception, the possession of marijuana and any other substance defined as a "Schedule V substance" by HRS chapter 329.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “already [took] note of the fact that the United States Supreme Court, in [ City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507 , 117 S.Ct. 2157 , 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) ], invalidated RFRA insofar as it 'exceeded the enumerated powers of Congress and was, therefore, unconstitutional.' ... As a result, RFRA is inoperative as to the individual states.”
    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.