Doe v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At its core, procedural due process of law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant liberty interest.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DD v. GD · RQ v. KQ

2. ““A trial court’s FOFs are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.” Ueoka v. Szymanski 107 Hawai'i 386, 393 , 114 P.3d 892, 899 (2005) (citations omitted). An FOF is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding. We have defined substantial evidence as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai'i 43, 51 , 85 P.3d 150, 158 (2004) (quoting Beneficial Hawai'i, Inc. v. Kida, 96 Hawai'i 289, 305 , 30 P.3d 895, 911 (2001)). The appellate court reviews the trial court’s COLs de novo. A COL is not binding upon an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness. Moreover, a COL that is supported by the trial court’s FOFs and that reflects an application of the correct rule of law will not be overturned. Bhakta v. County of Maui 109 Hawai'i 198, 208 , 124 P.3d 943, 953 (2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets in original omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hollaway v. Hollaway · NB v. GA

3. “[U]nder the Hawai#i Constitution, absent express findings of exigent or emergency circumstances, due process requires that a parent be given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to a change in primary physical or legal custody in family court custody matters . . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. S.G. v. B.A. · G.W. v. D.C.