State v. Arceo’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
253 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 253 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Richie (1998), Gray v. Administrative Director of Court (1997)
253 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Atkinson · Johnson v. Louisiana · Yates v. Evatt · Apodaca v. Oregon
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 253 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996) (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai'i 324, 329 , 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 18 , 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995); State v. Higa, 79 Hawai'i 1, 3 , 897 P.2d 928, 930 , reconsideration denied, 79 Hawai'i 341 , 902 P.2d 976 (1995); State v. Nakata, 76 Hawai'i 360, 365 , 878 P.2d 699, 704 , reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 453 , 879 P.2d 558 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1147 , 115 S.Ct. 1095 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1995).”
107 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sasai. · State v. Austin“the circuit court erred in: (1) refusing to require the prosecution “to elect the specific acts upon which convictions ... were being sought” as to each count, in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict implicit in the due process clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution; (2) “failing to instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that [the defendant] committed the same specific act in reaching ... guilty verdiet[s]” as to each count, likewise in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rabago · State v. Kalaola“"(7) 'even four-year-olds can accurately recall the basic temporal order of events'; [Child Witnesses] at 28; (8) '[c]hildren are also no more prone than adults to confuse actual frequency of events with imagined presentations'; id. at 29 ; (9) ‘mastery of the concepts of time and distance increases with age[;] ... five-year-olds were unable to make either required analysis[;] ... the time concept was rarely attained by either eight- or eleven-year-olds, and only adults used it extensively in problem solving’; id. at 31 ; ....’’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.