Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 HAW 241 - Anderson v. State

Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2015

4 district · 5 state decisions

40199820002010decided

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 United States v. Kubrick · Costello v. United States · Page v. United States · Waugh v. University of Hawaii · Gross v. United States

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

  1. “Our courts have interpreted the word "accrues" under HRS § 662-4 to mean that the statute does not begin to run "until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant's negligence." Waugh v. University of Hawaii, 63 Haw. 117, 127 , 621 P.2d 957, 966 (1980) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Hawai'i Supreme Court later interpreted a similar statute of limitations, HRS § 657-7 (1993), to mean that a claim against the State "accrues" when the claimant "discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, (1) the damage; (2) the violation of the duty [to the claimant]; and (3) the causal connection between the violation of the duty and the damage." Hays v. City and County of Honolulu, 81 Hawai'i 391, 396 , 917 P.2d 718, 723 (1996) (citation omitted) (interpreting HRS § 657-7.3 (1993) and HRS § 657-7).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, (1) the damage; (2) the violation of the duty [to the claimant]; and (3) the causal connection between the violation of the duty and the damage.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.