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.
27 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). 2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). | 2 | 2 |
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Trainagreen2 sentences2004Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019, 1022 (Ind.1986). 2004Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019, 1022 (Ind.1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McGriffgreen2 sentences2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). 2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). | 1 | 3 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2025On the other hand, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies where society has a minimal concern with the outcome of the suit, and the parties should thus "share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion." Id. at 423. 2025On the other hand, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies where society has a minimal concern with the outcome of the suit, and the parties should thus "share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion." Id. at 423 . | 1 | 3 |
Masaki v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1999In contrast, the preponderance of the evidence standard is defined as proof which leads the trier of fact to find that “the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Masaki, 71 Haw. at 14 , 780 P.2d at 574 (citation omitted). 1999In contrast, the preponderance of the evidence standard is defined as proof which leads the trier of fact to find that “the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Masaki, 71 Haw. at 14 , 780 P.2d at 574 (citation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. DeMellogreen2 sentences2020See State v. Demello, 130 Hawai#i 332, 342-45, 310 P.3d 1033, 1043-46 (App. 2013) (Demello I), reversed in part on other grounds by State v. Demello, 136 Hawai#i 193, 361 P.3d 420 (2015) (Demello II). 2015Id. at 342-345 , 310 P.3d at 1042-46 . . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Arvizugreen2 sentences2010In addressing reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has favorably quoted language from the United States Supreme Court that "the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard." State v. Soillner, 116 Hawai'i 351, 358 , 173 P.3d 498, 505 (2007) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002)). 2010Moreover, "[a] determination that reasonable suspicion exists... need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct." Spillner, 116 Hawai'i at 358 , 173 P.3d at 505 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277 ) . | 1 | 2 |
In re the Guardianship of Doegreen2 sentences2026See In re Guardianship of Doe, 106 Hawaiʻi 75, 78, 101 P.3d 684, 687 (App. 2004) (applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to fitness in guardianship proceedings). 2026See In re Guardianship of Doe, 106 Hawaiʻi 75, 78, 101 P.3d 684, 687 (App. 2004) (applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to fitness in guardianship proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
In Re DISgreen2 sentences2026In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d at 786 (“[T]he Troxel presumption and the court’s statutory role in considering what is in the child’s best interests can be accommodated through the guardian bearing the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”). 2026In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d at 786 (“[T]he Troxel presumption and the court’s statutory role in considering what is in the child’s best interests can be accommodated through the guardian bearing the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Councilgreen1 sentence2025See City of Lake Elmo, 685 N.W.2d at 4 . | 1 | 1 |
Seherr-thoss v. Teton County Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2025Comm’rs, 329 P.3d 936, 944 (Wyo. 2014) (“The normal standard of proof in administrative hearings is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”); In re Black Hills Power, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 631, 636 (S.D. 2016) (“[T]he burden of proof for administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence.”). 2025Comm’rs, 329 P.3d 936, 944 (Wyo. 2014) (“The normal standard of proof in administrative hearings is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”); In re Black Hills Power, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 631, 636 (S.D. 2016) (“[T]he burden of proof for administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Woodruff v. Kealegreen2 sentences2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100, 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). 2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100, 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ganogreen2 sentences2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). 2025“Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the 26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. McGriff, 76 Hawaiʻi 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987)); Gano, 92 Hawaiʻi at 172, 988 P.2d at 1164 (reaffirming the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in McGriff). | 1 | 1 |
Application of Black Hills Powergreen2 sentences2025Comm’rs, 329 P.3d 936, 944 (Wyo. 2014) (“The normal standard of proof in administrative hearings is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”); In re Black Hills Power, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 631, 636 (S.D. 2016) (“[T]he burden of proof for administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence.”). 2025Comm’rs, 329 P.3d 936, 944 (Wyo. 2014) (“The normal standard of proof in administrative hearings is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”); In re Black Hills Power, Inc., 889 N.W.2d 631, 636 (S.D. 2016) (“[T]he burden of proof for administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
DW Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC.green1 sentence2025Under HRS § 91-14(f) (Supp. 2019), judicial review of an agency appeal is typically "confined to the administrative record." 10 DW Aina Le‘a Dev., LLC v. Bridge Aina Le‘a, LLC., 134 Hawai‘i 187, 216, 339 P.3d 685, 714 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Adams, 135 Hawai‘i at 13, 346 P.3d at 82 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeMello.green1 sentence2020See State v. Demello, 130 Hawai#i 332, 342-45, 310 P.3d 1033, 1043-46 (App. 2013) (Demello I), reversed in part on other grounds by State v. Demello, 136 Hawai#i 193, 361 P.3d 420 (2015) (Demello II). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maganisgreen2 sentences2017State v. Maganis, 109 Hawaii 84, 86-88, 123 P.3d 679, 681-83 (2005) (rejecting ICA’s interpretation of probable cause as requiring a lesser quantum of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard as an “unreasonabl[e]” “attempt to ‘water down’” the requirement). 2017State v. Maganis, 109 Hawaii 84, 86-88, 123 P.3d 679, 681-83 (2005) (rejecting ICA’s interpretation of probable cause as requiring a lesser quantum of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard as an “unreasonabl[e]” “attempt to ‘water down’” the requirement). | 1 | 1 |
People v. KEICHLERgreen2 sentences2013In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 , 119 P.3d 1039, 1041 (2005); People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 120, 124 (2005); People v. Carpenter, 885 P.2d 334, 336 (Colo.App.1994) (“[A] preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient and proper burden of persuasion in proceeding to establish restitution in criminal cases. 2013In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 , 119 P.3d 1039, 1041 (2005); People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 120, 124 (2005); People v. Carpenter, 885 P.2d 334, 336 (Colo.App.1994) (“[A] preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient and proper burden of persuasion in proceeding to establish restitution in criminal cases. | 1 | 1 |
In Re William L.green2 sentences2013In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 , 119 P.3d 1039, 1041 (2005); People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 120, 124 (2005); People v. Carpenter, 885 P.2d 334, 336 (Colo.App.1994) (“[A] preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient and proper burden of persuasion in proceeding to establish restitution in criminal cases. 2013In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 , 119 P.3d 1039, 1041 (2005); People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 120, 124 (2005); People v. Carpenter, 885 P.2d 334, 336 (Colo.App.1994) (“[A] preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient and proper burden of persuasion in proceeding to establish restitution in criminal cases. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinnemangreen1 sentence2013Other jurisdictions have taken the position that, “[t]he State has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between the restitution requested and the crime with which the defendant is charged,” State v. Kinneman, 122 Wash.App. 850, 860 , 95 P.3d 1277, 1283 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Romanogreen2 sentences2013In determining whether a defendant has proven his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, this court has stated, “The preponderance of the evidence standard directs the factfinder to decide whether ‘the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.’” State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 8 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1109 (2007) (citations omitted). 2013In determining whether a defendant has proven his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, this court has stated, “The preponderance of the evidence standard directs the factfinder to decide whether ‘the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.’” State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 8 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1109 (2007) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2013In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 , 119 P.3d 1039, 1041 (2005); People v. Keichler, 129 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1045 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 120, 124 (2005); People v. Carpenter, 885 P.2d 334, 336 (Colo.App.1994) (“[A] preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient and proper burden of persuasion in proceeding to establish restitution in criminal cases. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spillnergreen2 sentences2010In addressing reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has favorably quoted language from the United States Supreme Court that "the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard." State v. Soillner, 116 Hawai'i 351, 358 , 173 P.3d 498, 505 (2007) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002)). 2010In addressing reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has favorably quoted language from the United States Supreme Court that "the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard." State v. Soillner, 116 Hawai'i 351, 358 , 173 P.3d 498, 505 (2007) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
| Doe II v. Roe IIgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Hausner v. Blackmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People Ex Rel. Adams v. Kitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Maui Ranch Estates Owners Ass'n v. County of Mauigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Oliveragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baehr v. Lewinred | 1 | 1 |
| Iddings v. Mee-Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nakano v. Matayoshigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coyle v. Compton
green
2 sentences2011In Coyle, for example, the supreme court held that imposing the preponderance of the evidence standard at the TRO hearing, rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard, did not violate the defendant’s equal protection or substantive due process rights. 85 Hawai'i at 206-08 , 940 P.2d at 413-15 . 2011In Coyle, for example, the supreme court held that imposing the preponderance of the evidence standard at the TRO hearing, rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard, did not violate the defendant’s equal protection or substantive due process rights. 85 Hawai'i at 206-08 , 940 P.2d at 413-15 . | 2 | 1999–2011 |
State v. Dathan Chung
green
1 sentence2017Although the evidence need not be sufficient to support a conviction, see id., this court has concluded that the requirement of probable cause is at least as demanding as the preponderance of the evidence standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences2015Kalua's reliance on State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446 , 865 P.2d 150 (1994), and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), is misplaced. 2015Kalua's reliance on State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446 , 865 P.2d 150 (1994), and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), is misplaced. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Lessary
green
2 sentences2015Kalua's reliance on State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446 , 865 P.2d 150 (1994), and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), is misplaced. 2015Kalua's reliance on State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446 , 865 P.2d 150 (1994), and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), is misplaced. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Kinneman
green
1 sentence2013Other jurisdictions have taken the position that, “[t]he State has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between the restitution requested and the crime with which the defendant is charged,” State v. Kinneman, 122 Wash.App. 850, 860 , 95 P.3d 1277, 1283 (2004). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Sokolow
green
2 sentences2007Although an officer's reliance on a mere "`hunch'" is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry, . . . [392 U.S.] at 27[, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ], the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard, [ United States v. ] Sokolow, [ 490 U.S. 1 ,] 7[, 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)]. 2007Although an officer's reliance on a mere "`hunch'" is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry, . . . [392 U.S.] at 27[, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ], the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard, [ United States v. ] Sokolow, [ 490 U.S. 1 ,] 7[, 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)]. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Illinois v. Gates green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State, Dept. of Social Services v. Pierre green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Williams green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Baehr v. Lewin red | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Jones v. United States green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.