Aluli v. Lewin’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2017
16 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 Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus · Carmen Gonzalez v. Orville L. Freeman · Crema v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · White v. Roughton
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Air quality is an integral part of the quality of life and the public should have input in the matter. The language of HRS § 34.2B-32 provides for permit issuance in accordance with rules which indicates that the legislature envisioned public input into these matters. * * * ⅜ * * The fact that the appellants in this case had an opportunity to present their views before the circuit court at trial is clearly not an adequate substitute for the rule[-]making process required under HRS § 342B-32. The appellants comprise a small portion of the public. Others may have been interested in providing input in the matter but may not have been able to intervene in this lawsuit due to a lack of notice or resources. Moreover, fairness to the public and potential applicants for air pollution permits dictates that the rules adopted by DOH be known beforehand. This will enable one to plan and make decisions with certainty. ⅞: ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅜: ¾: Future applicants will have no official source to turn to for guidance. • There will be no avenue to predict DOH’s actions in permit application procedures. Without established written standards by rules, no one can know whether permit applications will be reviewed fairly and consistently and whether considerations to grant or deny a permit will serve the purpose of the statute or are unlawful (e.g., bribes, race discrimination). See, 613 Corp. [v. New Jersey, Div. of State Lottery ], [ 210 N.J.Super. 485 ] 510 A.2d [103,] 112 [ (N.J.Super.A.D.1986) ]; Crema [”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[t]he director shall refuse to issue the permit unless it ... would be in compliance with the rules of the department and the state ambient air quality standards.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rules are necessary to ensure fairness and to minimize unbridled use of discretion of an agency.”
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.