8 Haw. App. 145 - State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2017
22 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 Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6 · State v. Grindles · 3 Haw. App. 300 - State v. Halemanu · 5 Haw. App. 644 - State v. Correa · 6 Haw. App. 554 - State v. Souza
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A person commits the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor if: (1) The person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, meaning that the person concerned is under the influence of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair the person’s normal mental faculties or ability to care for oneself and guard against casualty; or (2) The person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle with .10 per cent or more, by weight of alcohol in the person's blood.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nesmith · State v. Nesmith“[t]he law is well-settled that the admissibility of evidence, generally, and the scope of cross-examination at trial are matters exercised within the discretion of the trial court.... The trial court’s exercise of its discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination will not be ruled as reversible error when it limits irrelevant and repetitious questions by counsel [and the limitation does] not result in any manifest prejudice to the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Okumura · State v. Nesmith“Rule 1102 Jury instructions; comment on evidence prohibited. The court shall instruct the jury regarding the law applicable to the facts of the case, but shall not comment upon the evidence. It shall also inform the jury that they are the exclusive judges of all questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nomura
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.