Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Haw. App. 251 - State v. Rabe

5 Haw. App. 251 - State v. Rabe’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Kealoha v. County of Hawaii (1993), State v. Aplaca (1992)

26 state decisions

1401984199020002010decided

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 Washington v. Texas · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · United States v. Davis · United States v. Angelini · United States v. Hewitt

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

  1. “It has generally been stated that the standard of review of the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence in a criminal case is the abuse of discretion standard. ... Under that standard different trial judges may, on the same facts, arrive at opposite rulings without any of them being reversible on appeal. We disagree with the application of the abuse of discretion standard of review to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence under Rule 608(a). Rule 608(a) imposes precise limitations. It states specifically who may introduce what evidence and when. Each set of facts has only one correct answer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the trial court may not be reversed by an appellate court unless the trial court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. Under that standard different trial judges may, on the same facts, arrive at opposite rulings without any of them being reversible on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a pertinent character trait is one that tends to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable than it would be without evidence of that trait.”
    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.