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.
6 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mortensen-Young.green1 sentence2024See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring numbered points of error). 3 The previous version of HRS § 805-1 (2014) in effect at the time Yokota was charged, required that a complaint requesting issuance of a warrant for the accused, must either be "subscribed by the complainant under oath," or "made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court." In Thompson, issued in 2021 after Yokota's 2020 convictions, the supreme court held that a complaint that did not comply with HRS § 805-1 for lack of a supporting affidavit or declaration was "fatally defective," a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompson.green1 sentence2024See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring numbered points of error). 3 The previous version of HRS § 805-1 (2014) in effect at the time Yokota was charged, required that a complaint requesting issuance of a warrant for the accused, must either be "subscribed by the complainant under oath," or "made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court." In Thompson, issued in 2021 after Yokota's 2020 convictions, the supreme court held that a complaint that did not comply with HRS § 805-1 for lack of a supporting affidavit or declaration was "fatally defective," a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stockergreen2 sentences2016The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable under the following circumstances: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor, or a person acting at the request of the parent, guardian, or other responsible person, and: (a) The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.] This court then stated that the pare 2016The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable under the following circumstances: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor, or a person acting at the request of the parent, guardian, or other responsible person, and: (a) The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.] This court then stated that the pare | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crousergreen2 sentences2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . 2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fukagawagreen2 sentences2011Like the ICA dissent, the dissent maintains that it may make this determination because “ ‘an appellate court may affirm the judgment of a trial court on any ground in the record that supports affirmance.’ ” Id. at 99 n. 1, 253 P.3d at 660 n. 1 (quoting State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498, 506 , 60 P.3d 899, 907 (2002)) (brackets omitted) (emphasis added). 2011Like the ICA dissent, the dissent maintains that it may make this determination because “ ‘an appellate court may affirm the judgment of a trial court on any ground in the record that supports affirmance.’ ” Id. at 99 n. 1, 253 P.3d at 660 n. 1 (quoting State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498, 506 , 60 P.3d 899, 907 (2002)) (brackets omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kikutagreen2 sentences2011Like the ICA dissent, the dissent maintains that it may make this determination because "`an appellate court may affirm the judgment of a trial court on any ground in the record that supports affirmance.'" Id. at 80 n. 1, 253 P.3d at 641 n. 1 (quoting State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai`i 498, 506, 60 P.3d 899, 907 (2002)) (brackets omitted) (emphasis added). 2011Although Petitioner did not argue that Respondent was precluded from an instruction on the parental discipline defense under HRS § 703-309(1)(a), the ICA dissent and the dissent herein assert that Petitioner was not entitled to a parental discipline defense "because he did not strike [] Complainant for disciplinary reasons." Dissenting opinion at 100, 253 P.3d at 661 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matavalegreen2 sentences2011Under HRS § 703-309(1)(a), a parent’s use of force against his or her child is justifiable if “[t]he force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.]” In construing HRS § 703-309(1)(a), the Hawai'i Supreme Court has held that “to be ‘reasonably related’ to the purpose of punishing misconduct, use of force must be both reasonably proportional to the misconduct being punished and reasonably believed necessary to pro 2011Under HRS § 703-309(1)(a), a parent’s use of force against his or her child is justifiable if “[t]he force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct[.]” In construing HRS § 703-309(1)(a), the Hawai'i Supreme Court has held that “to be ‘reasonably related’ to the purpose of punishing misconduct, use of force must be both reasonably proportional to the misconduct being punished and reasonably believed necessary to pro | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem
green
2 sentences2012Although the ICA stated that the court "concluded that even if the defense [in HRS § 703-309] were available,” Petitioner’s "use of force was not reasonably related to safeguarding or promoting Minor's welfare," see Hamilton III, 125 Hawai’i at 341, 260 P.3d at 1159 , the court seemed uncertain as to the scope of HRS § 586-1. 2012Hamilton III, 125 Hawai'i at 339-40, 260 P.3d at 1157-58 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Rezentes v. Rezentes
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 205, 965 P.2d at 138 . 2011Id. at 201, 965 P.2d at 134 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Deleon
green
2 sentences2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . 2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Kaimimoku
green
2 sentences2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . 2011In Crouser , the defendant, citing to State v. Deleon, 72 Haw. 241 , 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), and State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw.App. 345 , 841 P.2d 1076 (1992), contended that his use of force was justifiable under HRS § 703-309(1)(b) when compared to prior cases interpreting extreme pain under the cannon of construction of noscitur a socras. 4 Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at 12-13 , 911 P.2d at 732-33 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.