9 Haw. App. 263 - State v. Arlt’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2010
18 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Austin v. United States · Chambers v. Texas · People v. Tubby · Ritchie v. State · State v. Sorrentino
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 708-841 Robbery in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the second degree if, in the course of committing theft: (a) The person uses force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person’s physical resistance or physical power of resistance; (b) The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone who is present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property; or (e) The person recklessly inflicts serious bodily injury upon another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brooks“To make or award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the promotion of justice in matters pending before it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Tanaka“[s]ince there is no statute or constitutional provision in Hawai`i which specifically vests in the appellate courts the express authority to affirm, reverse, remand, vacate, or set aside any judgment, decree, or order of a court brought before them, such authority presumably derives from [HRS § 602-5(7)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Tanaka
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.