State v. Graybeard’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2021
17 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 Tachibana v. State · State v. McNulty · State v. Ildefonso · State v. Naeole · State v. Tamura
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n appellate court has... an independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction over each case and to dismiss the appeal sua sponte if a jurisdictional defect exits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that HRPP Rule 32(c)(2) be amended to expressly recognize a separate, filed judgment as the entry of judgment in tire district courts, either as an alternative to the clerk's notation of the judgment on the court calendar or as the sole and exclusive method of entry of judgment”). Inasmuch as HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) was not in effect at the time the district court announced its oral order granting Bohan-non’s motions to suppress and to dismiss, it is inapplicable to the May 26, 2000 notation by the clerk on the traffic calendar. HRPP Rule 44(b)(1), however, was in effect on July 17, 2000, the time at which the district court announced its oral order denying the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration; we discuss the applicability of HRPP Rule 44(b)( 1) to the foregoing motion tnfi-a in section III.A.l. . Likewise, a photocopy or other replication of the clerk's notation of the decision or ruling on the district court calendar does not satisfy the dictate of HRAP Rule 4(b)(3). . The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bohannon“a mistake in designating the judgment . . . should not result in loss of the appeal as long as the intention to appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from the notice and the appellee is not misled by the mistake.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pelen
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.