righVwrong standard in Hawaii

28 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (31)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Jenkinsgreen haw · 2000 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017 2 sentences 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)). 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)).	2	2
Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Department of Land & Natural Resourcesgreen haw · 2006 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015 2 sentences 2015STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Jurisdiction “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that [the appellate court reviews] de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Res., State of Hawai‘i, 113 Hawai'i 184, 192 , 150 P.3d 833, 841 (2006) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 2015STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Jurisdiction “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that [the appellate court reviews] de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Res., State of Hawai‘i, 113 Hawai'i 184, 192 , 150 P.3d 833, 841 (2006) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).	2	2
Tam v. Kaiser Permanentegreen haw · 2001 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014 2 sentences 2014Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai'i 439, 444 , 184 P.3d 191, 196 (2008) (quoting Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai'i 487, 494 , 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001)) (brackets omitted). 2014Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai'i 439, 444 , 184 P.3d 191, 196 (2008) (quoting Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai'i 487, 494 , 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001)) (brackets omitted).	2	2
Francis v. Lee Enterprises, Inc.green haw · 1999 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2000–2011 2 sentences 2011Francis v. Lee Enter., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 234, 236 , 971 P.2d 707, 709 (1999). 2011Francis v. Lee Enter., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 234, 236 , 971 P.2d 707, 709 (1999).	2	2
Amantiad v. Odumgreen haw · 1999 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005 2 sentences 2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 158 , 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 241 , 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 158 , 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 241 , 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).	2	2
State v. Elenekigreen haw · 2000 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)). 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)).	1	1
State v. Edwardsgreen haw · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)). 2017STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review a “ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 231 , 30 P.3d 238, 245 (2001) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 100 , 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000)). “[Fjaetual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case [are] governed by the clearly erroneous standard,” and “conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” Id. (quoting State v. Eleneki, 92 Hawai'i 562, 564 , 993 P.2d 1191, 1193 (2000)).	1	1
State v. Vlietgreen haw · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai'i 94, 107 , 19 P.3d 42, 55 (2001). 2016State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai'i 94, 107 , 19 P.3d 42, 55 (2001).	1	1
State v. Pattioaygreen haw · 1995 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016“The circuit court’s conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 459 , 896 P.2d 911, 915 (1995) (citation omitted). 2016“The circuit court’s conclusions of law are reviewed under the righVwrong standard.” State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 459 , 896 P.2d 911, 915 (1995) (citation omitted).	1	1
Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co.green haw · 2008 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai'i 439, 444 , 184 P.3d 191, 196 (2008) (quoting Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai'i 487, 494 , 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001)) (brackets omitted). 2014Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai'i 439, 444 , 184 P.3d 191, 196 (2008) (quoting Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai'i 487, 494 , 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001)) (brackets omitted).	1	1
State v. Adlergreen haw · 2005 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009“A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo under the righVwrong standard.” State v. Adler, 108 Hawai'i 169, 174 , 118 P.3d 652, 657 (2005) (citations omitted). 2009“A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo under the righVwrong standard.” State v. Adler, 108 Hawai'i 169, 174 , 118 P.3d 652, 657 (2005) (citations omitted).	1	1
Mottl v. Miyahiragreen haw · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Mottl v. Miyahira, 95 Hawai'i 381, 388 , 23 P.3d 716, 723 (2001). 511 B. 2006Mottl v. Miyahira, 95 Hawai'i 381, 388 , 23 P.3d 716, 723 (2001). 511 B.	1	1
Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roegreen haw · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Conclusions of Law and Rules for Construction of Insurance Policies “A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the righVwrong standard of review.” Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001) (quoting State v. Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i 207, 209 , 10 P.3d 728, 730 (2000)) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). 2006Conclusions of Law and Rules for Construction of Insurance Policies “A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the righVwrong standard of review.” Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001) (quoting State v. Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i 207, 209 , 10 P.3d 728, 730 (2000)) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).	1	1
State v. Ah Loogreen haw · 2000 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Conclusions of Law and Rules for Construction of Insurance Policies “A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the righVwrong standard of review.” Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001) (quoting State v. Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i 207, 209 , 10 P.3d 728, 730 (2000)) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). 2006Conclusions of Law and Rules for Construction of Insurance Policies “A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the righVwrong standard of review.” Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001) (quoting State v. Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i 207, 209 , 10 P.3d 728, 730 (2000)) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).	1	1
State v. Sun Na Leegreen haw · 1993 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 90 , 856 P.2d 1246, 1253 (1993). “[W]e have long held that: (1) legislative enactments are ‘presumptively constitutional;’ (2) ‘a party challenging a statutory scheme has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt;’ and (3) the constitutional defect must be ‘clear, manifest, and unmistakable.’” Convention Ctr. 2005State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 90 , 856 P.2d 1246, 1253 (1993). “[W]e have long held that: (1) legislative enactments are ‘presumptively constitutional;’ (2) ‘a party challenging a statutory scheme has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt;’ and (3) the constitutional defect must be ‘clear, manifest, and unmistakable.’” Convention Ctr.	1	1
Lester v. Rappgreen haw · 1997 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 158 , 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 241 , 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the righVwrong standard.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 158 , 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 241 , 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).	1	1
Leslie v. Estate of Tavaresgreen haw · 1999 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005“Under the righVwrong standard, this court examines the facts and answers the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court’s answer to it.” Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai'i 394, 399 , 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). 2005“Under the righVwrong standard, this court examines the facts and answers the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court’s answer to it.” Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai'i 394, 399 , 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).	1	1
State v. Adamgreen haw · 2002 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003State v. Adam, 97 Hawai'i 475, 481 , 40 P.3d 877, 883 (2002) (citations omitted). 2003State v. Adam, 97 Hawai'i 475, 481 , 40 P.3d 877, 883 (2002) (citations omitted).	1	1
State v. Friedmangreen haw · 2000 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai'i 63, 68 , 996 P.2d 268, 273 (2000) (whether Assault in the Third Degree committed in mutual affray is an included offense of family abuse presents a question of law, reviewed under the righVwrong standard). 2001State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai'i 63, 68 , 996 P.2d 268, 273 (2000) (whether Assault in the Third Degree committed in mutual affray is an included offense of family abuse presents a question of law, reviewed under the righVwrong standard).	1	1
Franks v. City and County of Honolulugreen haw · 1993 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 160 , 977 P.2d 160, 168 (1999) (citing Franks v. City & County of Honolulu, 74 Haw. 328, 334 , 843 P.2d 668, 671 (1993). 2000See Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 160 , 977 P.2d 160, 168 (1999) (citing Franks v. City & County of Honolulu, 74 Haw. 328, 334 , 843 P.2d 668, 671 (1993).	1	1
State v. Daviagreen haw · 1998 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249, 254 , 953 P.2d 1347, 1352 (1998) (citing State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)). 1999See State v. Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249, 254 , 953 P.2d 1347, 1352 (1998) (citing State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)).	1	1
State v. Arceogreen haw · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249, 254 , 953 P.2d 1347, 1352 (1998) (citing State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)). 1999See State v. Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249, 254 , 953 P.2d 1347, 1352 (1998) (citing State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)).	1	1
State v. Estradagreen haw · 1987 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 216-17 , 738 P.2d 812, 821-22 (1987). 1999See State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 216-17 , 738 P.2d 812, 821-22 (1987).	1	1
Hirono v. Peabodygreen haw · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997Hirono v. Peabody, 81 Hawai'i 230, 232 , 915 P.2d 704, 706 (1996). 1997Hirono v. Peabody, 81 Hawai'i 230, 232 , 915 P.2d 704, 706 (1996).	1	1
State v. Shakgreen haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
State v. Millergreen hawapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996“Under the righVwrong standard, we examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court’s answer to it.” State v. Miller, 4 Haw.App. 603, 606 , 671 P.2d 1037, 1040 (1983). 1996“Under the righVwrong standard, we examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court’s answer to it.” State v. Miller, 4 Haw.App. 603, 606 , 671 P.2d 1037, 1040 (1983).	1	1
State v. Torogreen hawapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
State v. Furutanigreen haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996State v. Bowe, 77 Hawaii 51, 53 , 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citing State v. Furutani 76 Hawaii 172, 180 , 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994)). 1996State v. Bowe, 77 Hawaii 51, 53 , 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citing State v. Furutani 76 Hawaii 172, 180 , 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994)).	1	1
State v. Bowegreen haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996State v. Bowe, 77 Hawaii 51, 53 , 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citing State v. Furutani 76 Hawaii 172, 180 , 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994)). 1996State v. Bowe, 77 Hawaii 51, 53 , 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citing State v. Furutani 76 Hawaii 172, 180 , 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994)).	1	1
State v. Barancogreen haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.)green haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Kamikawa v. United Parcel Service, Inc. green haw · 1998 2 sentences 2015When the facts are undisputed and the sole question is one of law, the decision of the Tax Appeal Court is reviewed “under the righVwrong standard.” Kamikawa, 88 Hawai'i at 338 , 966 P.2d at 650 (quoting Weinberg, 82 Hawai'i at 322 , 922 P.2d at 377 ). 2015When the facts are undisputed and the sole question is one of law, the decision of the Tax Appeal Court is reviewed “under the righVwrong standard.” Kamikawa, 88 Hawai'i at 338 , 966 P.2d at 650 (quoting Weinberg, 82 Hawai'i at 322 , 922 P.2d at 377 ).	1	2015–2015
Tax Appeal of Weinberg Ex Rel. WKH Corp. v. City & County of Honolulu green haw · 1996 2 sentences 2015When the facts are undisputed and the sole question is one of law, the decision of the Tax Appeal Court is reviewed “under the righVwrong standard.” Kamikawa, 88 Hawai'i at 338 , 966 P.2d at 650 (quoting Weinberg, 82 Hawai'i at 322 , 922 P.2d at 377 ). 2015When the facts are undisputed and the sole question is one of law, the decision of the Tax Appeal Court is reviewed “under the righVwrong standard.” Kamikawa, 88 Hawai'i at 338 , 966 P.2d at 650 (quoting Weinberg, 82 Hawai'i at 322 , 922 P.2d at 377 ).	1	2015–2015
Kealoha v. County of Hawaii green haw · 1993 2 sentences 2003Kealoha, 74 Haw. at 314-15 , 844 P.2d at 674 . 2003Kealoha, 74 Haw. at 314-15 , 844 P.2d at 674 .	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-15 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-701 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-732 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check