Nakamura v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2021
20 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 15 U.S.C. § 717C · 26 U.S.C. § 6331 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. · Baehr v. Lewin · Sims v. United States · Camara v. Agsalud
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that courts decline to consider the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether it weighs in favor of the administrative findings, or to review the agency's findings of fact by passing upon the credibility of witnesses or conflicts in testimony, especially the findings of an expert agency dealing with a specialized field.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellate review of the [LIRAB’s] decision is governed by Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993), which provides: Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (4) Affected by other error of law; or (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. HRS § 91-14(g). Under HRS § 91-14(g), [conclusions of law] are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); [findings of fact] are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dr. Ponce did more than opine generally that Nakamura had an illness predating his employment with UH. Dr. Ponce identified symptoms of paranoia and accompanying behaviors attributable to Nakamu- ra’s pre-existing illness as the source of Nakamura’s pre-garnishment work-related difficulties, pointing out that the behaviors were similar to difficulties that Nakamura had encountered before starting work at UH.”
1 later decision 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.