State v. Aluli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] denial of [the] rights [to due process and the equal protection of the laws] would ... result ... if a violation of [a] misdemeanor statute ... would invariably and necessarily constitute a violation' of [a] felony provision .... Thus, where the same act committed under the same circumstances is punishable either as a felony or a misdemeanor, under either of two statutory provisions, and the elements' of proof essential to either conviction are exactly the same, a conviction under the felony statute would constitute a violation of the defendant’s rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws. [Modica], 58 Haw. [at] 250-51, 567 P.2d [at] 421-22 ... (citations omitted). The "Módica rule,” which applies equally to the possibility of prosecution and conviction under two differently classed felonies (for example, under either a class [A] felony statute or a class C felony statute) ... was expressly reaffirmed in ... Kuuku , 61 Haw. [at] 80-81 [ & n. 1], 595 P.2d [at] 293 [ & n. 1]....”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jumila · State v. Arceo

2. “[O]ur foremost obligation [when interpreting a statute] is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowers v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. · Mendes v. HAWAII INS. GUAR. ASS'N.

3. “The drug trafficking statutes ... make a clear distinction between distributors (i.e., suppliers or sellers) and possessors according to the amount of drugs possessed or dispensed. In explaining the rationale for treating possessors and distributors differently, the Commentary to HRS §§ 712-1241 to 1250 states: It is the purpose of the Code to hit hardest at the illegal trafficker in dangerous drugs, harmful drugs, and detrimental drugs. The scheme devised for so doing is to arrange the sanctions relating to each substance, either for possession or distributing, on the basis of the amounts involved. Such amounts are meant to reflect, i.e., provide an indicia of[,] the position of the defendant in the illegal drug traffic_ In keeping with [the] purpose of the Code, the greater the amounts involved the more severe the sanctions. .Also, it will be noted that the offenses of distributing a given substance are classed or graded one degree above the possession of the same amount. Thus, for example, in §§ 712-1241 and 1242, the possession of “wholesale” amounts of a dangerous drug is a class A felony; however, the defendant who distributes “retail” amounts of a dangerous drug will receive the same sanction, whereas possession of that amount is a class B felony. In equating, for purposes of classification and sanction, possession of a given amount of a substance with distributing a somewhat smaller amount, the [penal code] attempts to provide the same sanction for persons at the same”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hoang