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.
5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 3 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. McNultygreen2 sentences2025It should have applied the McNulty test because Granillo's petition was based on newly discovered evidence. 60 Haw. at 267-68 , 588 P.2d at 445 . 2025It should have applied the McNulty test because Granillo's petition was based on newly discovered evidence. 60 Haw. at 267-68 , 588 P.2d at 445 . | 2 | 3 |
Hawai'i Police Department v. Kubota.green2 sentences2026See Haw. Police Dep’t, Cnty. of Haw. v. Kubota, 155 Hawaiʻi 136, 145, 557 P.3d 865 , 874 (2024). 2026See Haw. Police Dep’t, Cnty. of Haw. v. Kubota, 155 Hawaiʻi 136, 145, 557 P.3d 865 , 874 (2024). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Teves
green
2 sentences2020We also hold Stone’s right to a fair trial was violated because, as the ICA correctly noted, Officer Korenic testified 4 In Teves, the ICA set out a four-part test for granting a new trial based on a prosecution witness giving false testimony at trial: We hold that upon a proper and timely motion under Rule 33, HRPP, a new trial must be granted by the trial court when it decides that (1) it is reasonably satisfied that the testimony at trial of a material prosecution witness is false; (2) defendant and his agents did not discover the falseness of the testimony until after the trial; (3) the la 2020We also hold Stone’s right to a fair trial was violated because, as the ICA correctly noted, Officer Korenic testified 4 In Teves, the ICA set out a four-part test for granting a new trial based on a prosecution witness giving false testimony at trial: We hold that upon a proper and timely motion under Rule 33, HRPP, a new trial must be granted by the trial court when it decides that (1) it is reasonably satisfied that the testimony at trial of a material prosecution witness is false; (2) defendant and his agents did not discover the falseness of the testimony until after the trial; (3) the la | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. George Stofsky
green
2 sentences1984United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237 (2nd Cir. 1975). 1984United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237 (2nd Cir. 1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Lawrence Krasny
green
2 sentences1984United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237 (2nd Cir. 1975). 1984United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237 (2nd Cir. 1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |