Buck v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We review a circuit court’s award of summary judgment de novo under the same standard applied by the circuit court. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 104 , 839 P.2d 10, 22 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 843 P.2d 144 (1992) (citation omitted). As we have often articulated: [s]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted); see Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(c) (1990). “A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties.” Hulsman v. Hemmeter Dev. Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 61 , 647 P.2d 713, 716 , (1982) (citations omitted). Estate of Doe v. Paul Revere Ins. Group, 86 Hawai'i 262, 269-70 , 948 P.2d 1103, 1110-11 (1997) (quoting Morinoue v. Roy, 86 Hawai'i 76, 80 , 947 P.2d 944, 948 (1997)) (brackets omitted). We have also held that when making a summary judgment determination, “we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Morinoue, 86 Hawai'i at 80 , 947 P.2d at 948 (quoting Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawai'i 110, 112 , 899 P.2d 393, 395 (1995”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Acoba v. General Tire, Inc.

2. “[Ujnder the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run the moment [the] plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the negligent act, the damage, and the causal connection between the former and the latter. This being the case, once the plaintiff satisfies the discovery rule, the cause of action has accrued and the plaintiff has the right to file a lawsuit. It also stands to reason that plaintiffs counsel may thereafter file a complaint in compliance with HRCP Rule 11 based upon an inquiry that establishes facts sufficient to satisfy the discovery rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gap v. Puna Geothermal Venture