3 Haw. App. 472 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2010
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Starnes v. United States · State v. Estencion · State v. Apao · State v. Taylor · State v. Napeahi
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“De minimis infractions. (1) The court may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct alleged and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant’s conduct: (a) Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense; or (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or (c)Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the legislature in forbidding the offense. (2) The court shall not dismiss a prosecution under subsection (l)(c) of this section without filing a written statement of its reasons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rapozo“(2) “Simple negligence” as used in this section: (a) A person acts with simple negligence with respect to his conduct when he should be aware of a risk that he engages in such conduct. (b) A person acts with simple negligence with respect to attendant circumstances when he should be aware of a risk that such circumstances exist. (c) A person acts with simple negligence with respect to a result of his conduct when he should be aware of a risk that his conduct will cause such a result. (d) A risk is within the meaning of this subsection, if the person’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a deviation from the standard of care that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation. (3) Negligent homicide in the second degree is a misdemeanor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Oshiro“§ 707-703 Negligent homicide in the first degree. (1) A person is guilty of the offense of negligent homicide in the first degree if he causes the death of another person by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner. (2) Negligent homicide in the first degree is a class C felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Oshiro
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.