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.
28 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cresencia v. Kimgreen2 sentences2014VI, § 7 (stating that rules relating to “process, practice, procedure, and appeals” promulgated by the Supreme Court have the “force and effect of law”); Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278 (1997) (“The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” (citation omitted)). 2014VI, § 7 (stating that rules relating to “process, practice, procedure, and appeals” promulgated by the Supreme Court have the “force and effect of law”); Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278 (1997) (“The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” (citation omitted)). | 6 | 6 |
Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp.green2 sentences2013Interpretation of Court Rules “The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335-36 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278-79 (1997) (citing Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai'i 171, 176 , 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996)). “[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” Bohannon, 102 Hawai'i at 232 , 74 P.3d at 984 (2003) (citations omitted). 2013Interpretation of Court Rules “The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335-36 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278-79 (1997) (citing Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai'i 171, 176 , 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996)). “[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” Bohannon, 102 Hawai'i at 232 , 74 P.3d at 984 (2003) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eaglegreen2 sentences2006Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 52 is substantially similar to HRCP Rule 52(b). [22] "Where a Hawai`i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, `the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.'" Collins v. S. Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai`i 86, 88, 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997) (quoting Shaw v. N. Am. 1998Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is functionally identical to Rule 15(a) of the HRCP. " 'Where a Hawaii rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.’ ” Wong v. Takeuchi, 87 Hawai'i 320 , 329, 955 P.2d 593 , 602 (1998) (quoting Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai'i 86, 88 , 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 . | 3 | 3 |
Shaw v. North American Title Co.green2 sentences1999Where a Hawaii rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, “the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Shaw v. North American Title Co., 76 Hawaii 323, 326 , 876 P.2d 1291, 1294 (1994) (citations omitted). 1999Where a Hawaii rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, “the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Shaw v. North American Title Co., 76 Hawaii 323, 326 , 876 P.2d 1291, 1294 (1994) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bohannongreen2 sentences2013Interpretation of Court Rules “The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335-36 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278-79 (1997) (citing Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai'i 171, 176 , 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996)). “[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” Bohannon, 102 Hawai'i at 232 , 74 P.3d at 984 (2003) (citations omitted). 2013Interpretation of Court Rules “The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335-36 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278-79 (1997) (citing Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai'i 171, 176 , 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996)). “[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” Bohannon, 102 Hawai'i at 232 , 74 P.3d at 984 (2003) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Wong v. Takeuchigreen2 sentences2010“Where a Hawai'i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Id. (quoting Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46, 52 , 961 P.2d 611, 617 (1998) (other citation omitted)). 2010“Where a Hawai'i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Id. (quoting Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46, 52 , 961 P.2d 611, 617 (1998) (other citation omitted)). | 1 | 3 |
Humphreys v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421 , 847 P.2d 663, 666 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 847 P.2d 263 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S.Ct. 61 , 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). . 1994Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421 , 847 P.2d 668 , 666, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 853 P.2d 542 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 61 , 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
Keaulii v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2002See Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421 , 847 P.2d 663, 666 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 847 P.2d 263 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S.Ct. 61 , 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). . 2002See Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421 , 847 P.2d 663, 666 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 847 P.2d 263 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S.Ct. 61 , 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kimgreen1 sentence2009See Laeda, supra at ___, State v. Kim, 103 Haw. 285 (2003) [sic]. 54. | 1 | 1 |
County of Kaua'i Ex Rel. Nakazawa v. Baptistegreen2 sentences2008FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) is identical to HRCP Rule 60(b)(4). "`[W]here a Hawai`i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of that rule by the federal courts is highly persuasive.'" County of Kauai v. Baptiste, 115 Hawai`i 15, 33, 165 P.3d 916, 934 (2007) (quoting Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Hawai`i 3, 20 n. 15, 143 P.3d 1205 , 1222 n. 15 (2006)) (some brackets added and some omitted). 2008FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) is identical to HRCP Rule 60(b)(4). “ ‘[Wjhere a Hawaii rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of that rule by the federal courts is highly persuasive.’ ” County of Kauai v. Baptiste, 115 Hawai'i 15, 33 , 165 P.3d 916, 934 (2007) (quoting Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Hawai'i 3 , 20 n. 15, 143 P.3d 1205 , 1222 n. 15 (2006)) (some brackets added and some omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Sherry Gasaway v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, an Oregon Corporation John Does 1-10 Doe Partnerships 1-10 Roe Corporationgreen2 sentences2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Proee-dure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) (“A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection” (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (19 2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) ("A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection" (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (199 | 1 | 1 |
cluster 452063green2 sentences2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Proee-dure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) (“A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection” (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (19 2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) ("A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection" (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (199 | 1 | 1 |
Auto Drive-Away Company of Hialeah, Inc., Gertrude McKiernan and B. J. McKiernan v. Interstate Commerce Commissiongreen2 sentences2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Proee-dure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) (“A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection” (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (19 2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) ("A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection" (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (199 | 1 | 1 |
The Associated Press, a Corporation v. William S. Cook, D/B/A Radio Station Kryt, and Individuallygreen2 sentences2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Proee-dure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) (“A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection” (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (19 2005Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994); In re Teltronics Servs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 192 (2d Cir.1985); Associated Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1975); Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir.1966); see also 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2738 (2004) ("A party must move to strike an affidavit that violates [FRCP] Rule 56(e)[; t]he failure to do so will result in the waiver of the objection" (footnote omitted)); cf. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (199 | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Bank of Hawaii & DeYounggreen2 sentences2003Thus, because an “interpretation of a statute is ... a question of law reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard,” Bank of Hawai‘i v. DeYoung, 92 Hawai'i 347, 351 , 992 P.2d 42, 46 (2000), the interpretation of a rule presents a question of law. 2003Thus, because an “interpretation of a statute is ... a question of law reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard,” Bank of Hawai‘i v. DeYoung, 92 Hawai'i 347, 351 , 992 P.2d 42, 46 (2000), the interpretation of a rule presents a question of law. | 1 | 1 |
Edmonds, a Minor, by James, Mother and Natural Guardian v. Western Pennsylvania Hospitalgreen1 sentence2002See Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421 , 847 P.2d 663, 666 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 847 P.2d 263 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S.Ct. 61 , 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). . | 1 | 1 |
Mahiai v. Suwagreen2 sentences2002In this regard, in light of the ambiguity of Rule 6, Appellant's interpretation is neither *304 unreasonable nor absurd. [3] See Mahiai v. Suwa, 69 Haw. 349, 351 , 742 P.2d 359, 362 (1987) ("Courts will not adopt an interpretation of a rule which would lead to an absurd result."). 2002In this regard, in light of the ambiguity of Rule 6, Appellant's interpretation is neither *304 unreasonable nor absurd. [3] See Mahiai v. Suwa, 69 Haw. 349, 351 , 742 P.2d 359, 362 (1987) ("Courts will not adopt an interpretation of a rule which would lead to an absurd result."). | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Administrative Director of Courtgreen2 sentences2002Thus, “[w]hen there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute [or rule], an ambiguity exists.” Gray v. Administrative Dir. of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138, 148 , 931 P.2d 580, 590 (1997). 2002Thus, "[w]hen there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute [or rule], an ambiguity exists." Gray v. Administrative Dir. of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 148, 931 P.2d 580, 590 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Dorrance v. Leegreen2 sentences2002See Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 143, 145 , 976 P.2d 904, 907 (1999) (“The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.” (Quoting Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai'i 334, 335 , 944 P.2d 1277, 1278 (1997).)). 2002See Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai`i 143, 145, 976 P.2d 904, 907 (1999) ("The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction." (Quoting Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai`i 334, 335, 944 P.2d 1277, 1278 (1997).)). | 1 | 1 |
Harada v. Burnsgreen2 sentences1994Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968); Schubert v. Saluni, 9 Haw.App. 591, 597-99 , 855 P.2d 858, 862 (1993). 1994Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968); Schubert v. Saluni, 9 Haw.App. 591, 597-99 , 855 P.2d 858, 862 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Schubert v. Salunigreen2 sentences1994Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968); Schubert v. Saluni, 9 Haw.App. 591, 597-99 , 855 P.2d 858, 862 (1993). 1994Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968); Schubert v. Saluni, 9 Haw.App. 591, 597-99 , 855 P.2d 858, 862 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Santiagogreen2 sentences1993Significantly, this court declined to follow this interpretation of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Hawaii Constitution, holding instead that “unless [the Miranda warnings *435 are given], statements made by the accused may not be used either as direct evidence in the prosecutor’s case in chief or to impeach the defendant’s credibility during rebuttal or cross-examination.” Santiago, 53 Haw. at 266, 492 P.2d at 664 . 1993Significantly, this court declined to follow this interpretation of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Hawaii Constitution, holding instead that “unless [the Miranda warnings *435 are given], statements made by the accused may not be used either as direct evidence in the prosecutor’s case in chief or to impeach the defendant’s credibility during rebuttal or cross-examination.” Santiago, 53 Haw. at 266, 492 P.2d at 664 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dejetley v. Kaho'ohalahala
green
2 sentences2022As this court has held, HRCP Rule 15(a) is “functionally identical” to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and “[w]here a Hawai‘i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Dejetley, 122 Hawaiʻi at 270, 226 P.3d at 440 (quoting Fed. 2014Where a Hawai'i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Dejetley, 122 Hawai'i at 270 , 226 P.3d at 440 (citing Fed. | 2 | 2014–2022 |
Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel
green
2 sentences2012Where a Hawaii rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by federal courts is highly persuasive.” Pulawa, 112 Hawaii at 19 n. 15, 143 P.3d at 1221 n. 15 (citing federal authority to determine whether various costs should be assessed to the losing parties). 31 . 2008FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) is identical to HRCP Rule 60(b)(4). "`[W]here a Hawai`i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of that rule by the federal courts is highly persuasive.'" County of Kauai v. Baptiste, 115 Hawai`i 15, 33, 165 P.3d 916, 934 (2007) (quoting Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Hawai`i 3, 20 n. 15, 143 P.3d 1205 , 1222 n. 15 (2006)) (some brackets added and some omitted). | 2 | 2008–2012 |
Foman v. Davis
green
2 sentences2010In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals had erred in affirming the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment in order to allow amendment of the complaint. 2010In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals had erred in affirming the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment in order to allow amendment of the complaint. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2010Kaho'ohalahala cites to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 89 Hawai'i 157 , 162 n. 1, 969 P.2d 1275 , 1280 n. 1 (1998), for the proposition that "Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is functionally identical to Rule 15(a) HRCP” and that ”[w]here a Hawai'i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by the federal courts is highly persuasive." (Quoting Wong v. Takeuchi, 87 Hawai'i 320 , 329, 955 P.2d 593 , 602 (1998)). 23 . 2010Kaho'ohalahala cites to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 89 Hawai'i 157 , 162 n. 1, 969 P.2d 1275 , 1280 n. 1 (1998), for the proposition that "Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is functionally identical to Rule 15(a) HRCP” and that ”[w]here a Hawai'i rule of civil procedure is identical to the federal rule, the interpretation of this rule by the federal courts is highly persuasive." (Quoting Wong v. Takeuchi, 87 Hawai'i 320 , 329, 955 P.2d 593 , 602 (1998)). 23 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2001Ikezawa apparently depended on State v. Stone, 65 Haw. 308 , 651 P.2d 485 (1982), which held that when a defendant is arrested and charged, the six-month period under HRPP Rule 48 for bringing the defendant to trial commenced to run even though the original charge was subsequently dismissed on the prosecution's motion. 2001Ikezawa apparently depended on State v. Stone, 65 Haw. 308 , 651 P.2d 485 (1982), which held that when a defendant is arrested and charged, the six-month period under HRPP Rule 48 for bringing the defendant to trial commenced to run even though the original charge was subsequently dismissed on the prosecution's motion. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Nakata v. Nakata
green
2 sentences1982In light of the interpretation rule of Nakata v. Nakata, 3 Haw. 1982App. 51 , 641 P.2d 333 (1982), he had no other choice. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Vandervelde v. Put & Call Brokers & Dealers Ass'n
green
1 sentence1978Courts generally have given Rule 6(b) a liberal interpretation, consistent with the liberal interpretation standard in Rule 1, F.R.C.P., Vandervelde v. Put and Call Brokers and Dealers Association, supra; and in order to work substantial justice, Roscoe v. Roscoe, supra; Yonofskyv. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Luna Dale Roscoe v. Joseph A. Roscoe green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Yonofsky v. Wernick
green
1 sentence1978Wernick, 362 F.Supp. 1005 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.