Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Haw. App. 274 - Hall v. State

7 Haw. App. 274 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

2 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America (1995), Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (2007)

2 district · 34 state decisions

16019881990200020102020decided

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

Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1232 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1986

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Olff v. East Side Union High School District · Forster v. United States · Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America

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

  1. “A summary judgment motion challenges the very existence or legal sufficiency of the claim or defense to which it is addressed. In effect the moving party takes the position that he is entitled to prevail ... because his opponent has no valid claim for relief or defense to the action, as the case may be. He thus has the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact relative to the claim or defense and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ■ He may discharge his burden by demonstrating that if the case went to trial there would be no competent evidence to support a judgment for his opponent. For if no evidence could be mustered to. sustain the nonmoving party’s position, a trial would be useless....”
    4 later decisions 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.