State v. Uehara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the implied consent statute is intended to facilitate the enforcement of the DUI statute, Rossell, 59 Haw. at 181 , 579 P.2d at 669 , they are separate and distinct and should be enforced separately. A DUI violation is a criminal offense, see State v. O’Brien, 5 Haw.App. 491 , [497], 704 P.2d 905, 911 , aff'd, 68 Haw. [38], 704 P.2d 833 [883] (1985), whereas an implied consent violation is “civil in nature, and hearings before a district judge, pursuant to statute, are in the nature of administrative proceedings.” (Emphasis in original). State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 380 , 537 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975); see also State v. Gustafson, 54 Haw. 519, 520 , 511 P.2d 161, 162 (1973). Furthermore, the penalties for refusing to submit to testing are “additional penalties and not substitutes for other penalties provided by law.” HRS § 286-155 (Supp.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wilson