Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 Haw. 39 - MURASKO v. Loo

MURASKO v. Loo’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Wolfsohn v. Hankin · Harold Yanow v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company, a Corporation · Kema v. Gaddis · Escritor v. MAUI CTY. COUNCIL LTD.

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.

  1. “The respondent judge, without expressly stating for the record, exercised her power under RDC Rule 31(a)(5) to apply the DCRCP when she approved the Curells' ex parte motion for an extension of time to file 'post-verdict motions' pursuant to '[DCRCP] Rules 59 and 60,' when she explained at the October 2, 2010 hearing that she had granted the Curells an extension of the ten-day deadline to file a postjudgment motion under DCRCP Rule 59, and when she granted the Curells' motion for new trial 'made pursuant to [DCRCP] Rule 59.'”
    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.