State v. Pratt’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Collins v. Youngblood · Sanford's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Swift Company v. Hocking Valley Railway Company · Pele Defense Fund v. Paty · Saviano v. Commissioner
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[COL] 9. Case and statutory law all suggest that even with such a showing (under Hanapi), the Court must “reconcile competing interests,” or stated another way “accommodate competing ... interests” and only uphold such rights and privileges “reasonably exercised” and “to the extent feasible” and “subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights.” See Article XII, section 7, Hawaii Constitution; Public Access Shoreline Hawai'i v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, 79 Hawai'i 425 [ 903 P.2d 1246 ] (1995). [COL] 10. The Court must balance the competing interests of Mr. Pratt’s attempts to exercise certain Hawaiian native [sic] rights by setting up a residence and [heiau] in the Kalalau Valley with the State’s interest in keeping this a wilderness area for all to enjoy and be safe in. [COL] 11. The Court finds that the State has a valid interest in protecting and preserving this valuable asset, which means, among other things, controlling the amount of traffic, the length of stay for any one person, and the types of activities that are consistent with this stewardship. This interest when balanced against the rights expounded by Mr. Pratt weigh in favor of the State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pratt“The board [of land and natural resources] or its authorized representative may establish a reasonable schedule of visiting hours for all or portions of the premises and close or restrict the public use of all or any portion thereof, when necessary for the protection of the area or the safety and welfare of persons or property, by the posting of appropriate signs indicating the extent and scope of closure. All persons shall observe and abide by the officially posted signs designating closed areas and visiting hours.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pratt
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.