State v. Roman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, no evidence was adduced that the degree of force employed by Roman caused bruising, swelling, or required medical attention. Consequently, Roman's discipline was not so excessive that it "severed any relationship between the use of force and the welfare of [Minor] which might be considered `reasonable.'" Tanielu , 82 Hawai`i at 381, 922 P.2d at 994 . The discipline used by Roman was reasonably proportionate to Minor's misconduct, i.e., his defiant attitude and demeanor, and the discipline was necessary to punish Minor's misconduct. Therefore, we believe that, in light of the circumstances in this case, including the family court's expressed findings, the prosecution failed to disprove Roman's parental discipline defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Kikuta

2. “(1) A major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin; (2) A chemical, electrical, friction, or scalding burn of second degree severity; (3) A bone fracture; (4) A serious concussion; or (5) A tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Kikuta

3. “was employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor's misconduct[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Kikuta