22 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Councilgreen2 sentences2025He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Sandy Beach, 70 Haw. at 377 , 773 P.2d at 260 (citation omitted). 2025He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Sandy Beach, 70 Haw. at 377 , 773 P.2d at 260 (citation omitted). | 7 | 12 |
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen2 sentences2015He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id. at 377 , 773 P.2d at 260 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). 2015He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id. at 377 , 773 P.2d at 260 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). | 5 | 11 |
Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Commissiongreen2 sentences2012A property interest must involve “a legitimate claim of entitlement” and must be more than an “abstract need or desire[.]” Id. 2012A property interest must involve "a legitimate claim of entitlement" and must be more than an "abstract need or desire[.]" Id. | 3 | 4 |
Alejado v. City & County of Honolulugreen2 sentences2012Because such Petitioners can allege the Commission’s decision under these statutes adversely affected their constitutional rights under article XII, section 7, they have a legitimate claim of entitlement under the Constitution and would be entitled to a due process hearing on their claim. 25 Cf. Alejado, 89 Hawaii at 226-227 , 971 P.2d at 315-316 (contractual or statutory claim of entitlement is a basis for due process hearing). 2012Because such Petitioners can allege the Commission’s decision under these statutes adversely affected their constitutional rights under article XII, section 7, they have a legitimate claim of entitlement under the Constitution and would be entitled to a due process hearing on their claim. 25 Cf. Alejado, 89 Hawaii at 226-227 , 971 P.2d at 315-316 (contractual or statutory claim of entitlement is a basis for due process hearing). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Robert's Tours & Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2007He [or she] must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." In re Robert's Tours & Transp., Inc., 104 Hawai`i at 106, 85 P.3d at 631 (holding that an application that sought an expansion of motor-carrier service did not constitute a property interest that implicated the due-process clause). 2007He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." In re Roberts Tours & Transp., Inc., 104 Hawai'i 98, 106 , 85 P.3d 623, 631 (2004) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709 (1972)). | 2 | 2 |
Kaleikini v. Thielengreen1 sentence2013See Kaleikini, 124 Hawai'i at 31 , 237 P.Sd at 1097 (Acoba, J., concurring) (“native Hawaiians ... have equal rights to a contested case hearing where these [traditional and customary] practices are adversely affected.”). | 1 | 1 |
Life of the Land, Inc. v. Land Use Commissiongreen2 sentences1989While we have recognized the importance of aesthetic and environmental interests in determining an individual's standing to contest the issue, Life of the Land, Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 61 Haw. 3, 8 , 594 P.2d 1079, 1082 (1979), we have not found that such interests rise to the level of "property" within the meaning of the due process clause, and Appellants refer us to no authorities so holding. [10] Even if we assume, arguendo, that Appellants' visual and environmental interests constitute "property" interests within the meaning of the due process clause, no due process violation appears. 1989While we have recognized the importance of aesthetic and environmental interests in determining an individual's standing to contest the issue, Life of the Land, Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 61 Haw. 3, 8 , 594 P.2d 1079, 1082 (1979), we have not found that such interests rise to the level of "property" within the meaning of the due process clause, and Appellants refer us to no authorities so holding. [10] Even if we assume, arguendo, that Appellants' visual and environmental interests constitute "property" interests within the meaning of the due process clause, no due process violation appears. | 1 | 1 |
Resort Car Rental System, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commissiongreen1 sentence1985See Resort Car Rental System, Inc. v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, sub. nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2012He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id. (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). 1989In Aguiar , we concluded that the plaintiffs' interest in continuing to receive low-cost public housing benefits was a "property" interest. [9] 55 Haw. at 496 , 522 P.2d at 1267 . | 2 | 1989–2012 |
Card v. ZONING BD. OF HONOLULU
green
1 sentence2019He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” The DPP concluded that Local 5 “ha[d] a marginal interest, at best, in the 2121 Kuhio Project.” Additionally, the DPP stated that interested parties must request notice of the Director’s decisions, DPP Rules § 6-2, and argued that a requirement that interested parties receive automatic notice of the Director’s decisions without a request would “result in a waste of resources by DPP and undermine the court’s analysis in [Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals (CARD), 114 Hawai#i 184, 159 P.3d 143 (2007)].” The cir | 1 | 2019–2019 |
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The Sandy Beach court explained that “[t]he basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); and N. Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 605-06 , 95 S.Ct. 719 , 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975)). 2015The Sandy Beach court explained that “[t]he basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); and N. Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 605-06 , 95 S.Ct. 719 , 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2015The Sandy Beach court explained that “[t]he basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); and N. Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 605-06 , 95 S.Ct. 719 , 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975)). 2015The Sandy Beach court explained that “[t]he basic elements of procedural due process of law require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); and N. Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 605-06 , 95 S.Ct. 719 , 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.