7 Haw. App. 40 - Brent v. Staveris Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2024
2 district · 14 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 Levy v. Broadway-Carmen Building Corp. · Siekert v. Soester · 4 Haw. App. 533 - Hoge v. KANE II · Rupe v. Oldenburg · HONOLULU FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN ASS'N v. Pao
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hence, [t]he exercise of discretion by the lower court judge will not be disturbed on appeal except for abuse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The lower court's authority to confirm a judicial sale is a matter of equitable discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The circumstances of this case reduce to pure conjecture [the appellant’s] argument that a resale after further notice would ensure that a substantially greater sale price would have been obtained. The public auction in this ease was held after due notice, and after efforts to sell the property at private sale. All interested parties were afforded the opportunity to bid for the property. Since the commissioners allowed offers to continue after the auction was formally closed and interested parties were informed of the confirmation hearing date, all interested parties, whether they were at the auction or not, had knowledge of the [highest auction] bid by the time of the confirmation hearing, and were aware that they could still offer to buy the property at a higher bid. In effect, the commissioners left the auction open for more bids right up to the confirmation hearing and, in essence, the lower court merely kept the auction going. Anyone who thought the property was worth more than the [highest auction] bid could have made a higher bid and [the reopening bidder] did so. Even if a new sale had been ordered by the lower court, there is no guarantee that more interest in the property would have been generated, or that the successful bid at the new auction would have been as high or higher than [the reopening bidder’s] final open court bid. Moreover, a new sale would have entailed more costs for the parties involved. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its dis”
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.