8 Haw. App. 406 - State v. Lum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Land use statutes] are in derogation of the common law, and their provisions must be strictly construed. [T]he terms of the [land use statute] should be accorded their natural and most obvious meaning when there is no manifest legislative intent con-trarywise. In interpreting a [land use statute], the duty of this court is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the [legislature]....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtis v. Board of Appeals · Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan

2. “(a) The purpose of the LUO is to regulate land use in a manner that will encourage orderly development in accordance with adopted land use policies, including the Oahu general plan and development plans, and to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare by, more particularly: (1) Minimizing adverse effects resulting from the inappropriate location, use or design of sites and structures; (2) Conserving the city’s natural, historic and scenic resources and encouraging design which enhances the physical form of the city; and (3) Assisting the public in identifying and understanding regulations affecting the development and use of land.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Save Diamond Head Waters LLC. v. Hans Hedemann Surf, Inc.

3. “[i]n interpreting a zoning ordinance [under the LUO], the duty of this court is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Honolulu city council.... Legislative intent should be determined, if possible, from the language of the ordinance, and the language must be read in the context of the entire ordinance and construed in a manner consistent with the purposes of the ordinance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Save Diamond Head Waters LLC. v. Hans Hedemann Surf, Inc.