Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
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.