State v. Himuro’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Gray v. Administrative Director of Court (1997), Coon v. City and County of Honolulu (2002)
25 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 Town v. Land Use Commission · Jack Endo Electric, Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc. · Boulton v. Boulton · Hawaii Corporation v. Kim
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, the intention of the legislature must be ascertained. The legislative intent may be determined from a consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other. In general, a statute is directory rather than mandatory if the provisions of the statute do not relate to the essence of the thing to be done or where no substantial rights depend on compliance with the particular provisions and no injury can result from ignoring them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Malahoff v. Saito“a consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other. We are also mindful that our primary duty in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature which, in the absence of a clearly contrary expression!!,] is conclusively obtained by the language of the statute itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the legislature’s object was to provide a procedure for the prompt revocation of an arrested person’s driver’s license upon refusal to submit to sobriety testing. The license revocation procedure contributes to the overall goal of preventing traffic accidents by removing intoxicated drivers from the highways as expeditiously as possible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kawauchi 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.