State v. Kong.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[a]bsent clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have considered all factors before imposing 17 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706–606.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pedro · State v. Hema

2. “[a] sentencing judge generally has broad discretion in imposing a sentence. The applicable standard of review for sentencing or resentencing matters is whether the court committed plain and manifest abuse of discretion in its decision. Factors which indicate a plain and manifest abuse of discretion are arbitrary or capricious action by the judge and a rigid refusal to consider the defendant’s contentions. And, generally, to constitute an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment to the litigant.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Henley. · State v. Oili

3. “[t]he weight to be given the factors set forth in HRS § 706-606 in imposing sentence is a matter generally left to the discretion of the sentencing court, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pedro · State v. Cattaneo