10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 100 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 State v. Arceo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Arceo Anchor | green | “the interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” | 36 |
| 2 | Keawe v. State | green | “generally, to constitute an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” | 12 |
| 3 | State v. Jenkins | green | “we answer questions of constitutional law 'by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case,” | 11 |
| 4 | Keawe v. State | green | “factors which indicate a plain and manifest abuse of discretion are arbitrary or capricious action by the judge and a rigid refusal to consider the defendant's contentions.” | 11 |
| 5 | State v. Jenkins | green | “we answer questions of constitutional law by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case,” | 9 |
| 6 | State v. Cordeiro | green | “we may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant.” | 8 |
| 7 | In Interest of Doe | green | “family court possesses wide discretion in making its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion.” | 5 |
| 8 | State v. Hauge | green | “plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” | 3 |
| 9 | State v. Schroeder | green | “analysis first articulated by this court in state v. schroeder, 76 hawai'i 517 , 880 p.2d 192 (1994), and reaffirmed in state v. tafoya, 91 hawai'i 261 , 982 p.2d 890 (1999), and rejected the defendant's argument that apprendi mandated that a” | 3 |
| 10 | Keawe v. State | green | “to constitute an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” | 2 |
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.