Kaeo v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Kealoha v. County of Hawaii (1993), Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc. (1987)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 51 Cal. 2d 210 - Laird v. T. W. Mather, Inc. · Roman v. Mitchell · 287 Pa. Super. 400 - Peair v. Home Ass'n of Enola Legion No. 751 · McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. · Low v. Honolulu Rapid Transit Co.
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. David · Williams v. AONA“delicate balance between probative value and prejudicial effect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Palisbo · State v. David
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.