State v. Buch’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. Arceo (1996), State v. Rogers (2009)
47 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · 64 Cal. 2d 159 - Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County · Baehr v. Lewin
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A person commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree if: [[Image here]] (b) The person knowingly subjects to sexual penetration another person who is less than fourteen years old; provided this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit practitioners licensed under chapter 453, 455, or 460, from performing any act within their respective practices.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Kalama · State v. West“); Cieri v. Leticia Query Realty, Inc., 80 Hawai`i 54, 67, 905 P.2d 29, 42 (1995) (”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““[T]his court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council of the City and County of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361 , 773 P.2d 250 (1989), and Franks v. City and County of Honolulu, 74 Haw. 328 , 843 P.2d 668 (1993)) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). See also HRS § 1-5(3) (1993) (providing that “[e]very constniction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected ”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Naititi · State v. Haugen
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.