7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Panoke v. Reef Development of Hawaii, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Panoke v. Reef Development of Hawaii, Inc. Anchor | green | “in evaluating whether the burden of producing substantial evidence has been met, 'the slightest aggravation or acceleration of an injury by the employment activity mandates compensation.” | 5 |
| 2 | Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc. | green | “in any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . that the claim is for a covered work injury.” | 4 |
| 3 | Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant | green | “it is well-established that appellate courts review lirab's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.” | 4 |
| 4 | Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc. | green | “if an employee is capable of performing work in an occupation for which the worker has received previous training or for which the worker has demonstrated aptitude, they are not totally disabled.” | 4 |
| 5 | Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc. | green | “was unable to return to his usual and customary work as a carpenter as a result of the november 30, 2004 work injury.” | 4 |
| 6 | Panoke v. Reef Development of Hawaii, Inc. | green | “evidence showing why panoke's work accident could not have aggravated these conditions was necessary for the employer to adduce 'substantial evidence' and overcome the presumption of coverage.” | 4 |
| 7 | State v. Nakanelua | green | “mootness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction,” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.