9 Haw. App. 56 - Miller v. Manuel’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka (2000), GECC Financial Corp. v. Jaffarian (1995)
67 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
Relies on Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson · 200 Cal. App. 2d 741 - Snider v. Snider · Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win, Inc. · Callie v. Near · First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[wjhere the evidence in the record shows that all the essential elements of a contract are present, a compromise agreement among the parties in litigation may be approved by the court and cannot be set aside except on grounds that would justify rescission. Generally, in the absence of bad faith or fraud, when parties enter into an agreement settling and adjusting a dispute, neither party is permitted to repudiate it. However, since very important rights are at stake in most cases, appellate courts must strive to ensure that the purported compromise agreement sought to be enforced is truly an agreement of the parties. A motion to enforce a settlement contract is neither ordinary nor routine. It is the modern counterpart of the olden practice involving supplemental pleadings and formal trial or hearing of the issue as thus developed. Its relative simplicity is a concession to the policy favoring settlements, but only to the extent that full and fan opportunities to prove one’s points are substantially preserved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts will treat the documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment differently from those in opposition. Although they carefully scrutinize the materials submitted by the moving party to ensure compliance with the requirements of Rule 56(e), HRCP (1990), the courts are more indulgent towards the materials submitted by the non-moving party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ffidavits in support of a summary judgment motion [must be] scrutinized to determine whether the facts they aver are admissible at trial and are made on the personal knowledge of the affiant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.