Shin v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[wjhen read together, the statutes provide for service upon a resident or nonresident motorist by way of personal service, mail (with return receipt requested), or publication .... The statutes, thus, designate a means of effectuating service of process upon motorists who are impossible or difficult to locate. Nothing in the legislative history discusses the effect of the long-arm statutes on HRS § 657-18. However, because nonresident motorists are amenable to service of process pursuant to HRS §§ 634-33 and 634-36, they are not “out of the state” in the sense contemplated by the [sic] HRS § 657-18. This being the case, ... the statute of limitations is not tolled when a defendant is “out of the state,” as long as he [or she] is still amenable to service of process in the state. This interpretation is also consistent with courts in other jurisdictions construing similar statutes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eto v. Muranaka · First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers

2. “(a) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, the person’s personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the acts: [[Image here]] (2) The commission of a tortious act within this State; [[Image here]] (b) Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, as provided in this section, may be made as provided by section 634.-36, if the person cannot be found in the State, with the same force and effect as though summons had been personally served within this State.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eto v. Muranaka · First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers

3. “When service of summons is provided for by section[s] 634-33, 634-34, or 634-35, service shall be made by service upon the defendant personally by any person authorized to serve process in the place in which the defendant may be found or appointed by the court for the purpose, or sent by certified, registered, or express mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested, by the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney to the defendant. The plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney shall file the return of the serving officer or an affidavit showing that the copy of summons and complaint were served as aforesaid or sent by certified, registered, or express mail as aforesaid, and in the latter case the return receipt signed by the defendant shall be filed with the affidavit. The service shall be complete upon delivery of the required papers to the defendant outside the State, personally or by mail as provided. If the defendant cannot be found to sene or mail the summons and the facts shall appear by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the cornt, it may order that senice be made by publication of summons in at least one newspaper published in the State and having a general circulation in the circuit in which the action has been instituted, in such manner and for such time as the court may order, but not less than once each week in four successive weeks, the last publication to be not less than twenty-one days prior to the return date stated therein unless a different time is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eto v. Muranaka