stare decisis without some compelling justification doctrine in Hawaii

22 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Garciagreen haw · 2001 · cited in 16 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2024 2 sentences 2024See State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai‘i 200, 206, 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (noting that a court should “not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification,” and further 29 * NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER * observing that “considerations of stare decisis have special force in the area of statutory interpretation.”) (citations, brackets, and emphasis omitted). 2018Courts should "not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification ." State v. Garcia , 96 Hawai'i 200 , 206, 29 P.3d 919 , 925 (2001) (quoting Hilton v. South Carolina Pub.	11	16
State v. Kekuewagreen haw · 2007 · cited in 3 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2008–2025 2 sentences 2025See State v. Kekuewa, 114 Hawai‘i 411, 419, 163 P.3d 1148, 1156 (2007) (“ While 37 * FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER * ‘there is no necessity or sound legal reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare decisis’ . . . a court should ‘not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.’”). 2025See State v. Kekuewa, 114 Hawai‘i 411, 419, 163 P.3d 1148, 1156 (2007) (“ While 37 * FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER * ‘there is no necessity or sound legal reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare decisis’ . . . a court should ‘not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.’”).	3	3
Chung Mi Ahn v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.green haw · 2011 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Co., 126 Hawaiʻi 1, 10, 265 P.3d 470, 479 (2011) (explaining that a court should “not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification”).	1	1
Dairy Road Partners v. Island Insurance Co.green haw · 2000 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Co., 92 Hawai'i 398, 421 , 992 P.2d 93, 116 (2000) (“a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2015Co., 92 Hawai'i 398, 421 , 992 P.2d 93, 116 (2000) (“a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).	1	1
State v. Romanogreen haw · 2007 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See also State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1112 (2007) (“[A] court should not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2013See also State v. Romano, 114 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 155 P.3d 1102, 1112 (2007) (“[A] court should not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).	1	1
State v. Jenkinsgreen haw · 2000 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"As a general rule, we do not lightly disregard precedent; we subscribe to the view that great consideration should always be accorded precedent, especially one of long standing and general acceptance." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 111-12 , 997 P.2d 13, 37-38 (2000) (citation omitted); see also State v. Harada, 98 Hawai'i 18 , 23 n. 3, 41 P.3d 174 , 179 n. 3 (2002). "[We] should `not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification. '" State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai'i 200, 206 , 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (citing Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. 2004"As a general rule, we do not lightly disregard precedent; we subscribe to the view that great consideration should always be accorded precedent, especially one of long standing and general acceptance." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 111-12 , 997 P.2d 13, 37-38 (2000) (citation omitted); see also State v. Harada, 98 Hawai'i 18 , 23 n. 3, 41 P.3d 174 , 179 n. 3 (2002). "[We] should `not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification. '" State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai'i 200, 206 , 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (citing Hilton v. South Carolina Pub.	1	1
State v. Haradagreen haw · 2002 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"As a general rule, we do not lightly disregard precedent; we subscribe to the view that great consideration should always be accorded precedent, especially one of long standing and general acceptance." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 111-12 , 997 P.2d 13, 37-38 (2000) (citation omitted); see also State v. Harada, 98 Hawai'i 18 , 23 n. 3, 41 P.3d 174 , 179 n. 3 (2002). "[We] should `not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification. '" State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai'i 200, 206 , 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (citing Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. 2004"As a general rule, we do not lightly disregard precedent; we subscribe to the view that great consideration should always be accorded precedent, especially one of long standing and general acceptance." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87, 111-12 , 997 P.2d 13, 37-38 (2000) (citation omitted); see also State v. Harada, 98 Hawai'i 18 , 23 n. 3, 41 P.3d 174 , 179 n. 3 (2002). "[We] should `not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification. '" State v. Garcia, 96 Hawai'i 200, 206 , 29 P.3d 919, 925 (2001) (citing Hilton v. South Carolina Pub.	1	1
Franks v. City and County of Honolulugreen haw · 1993 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004The City further submits that "[i]f at all, the policy behind the statute of limitations require [sic] adherence to Salavea . " The City astutely points out a literal interpretation of HRS § 662-4 as only applying to the State and not to the City (such as that adopted by the majority), "does not end the analysis." The City maintains that this court has recognized that departure from a literal construction of a statute "is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and the literal construction in the particular action is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and 2004The City further submits that "[i]f at all, the policy behind the statute of limitations require [sic] adherence to Salavea . " The City astutely points out a literal interpretation of HRS § 662-4 as only applying to the State and not to the City (such as that adopted by the majority), "does not end the analysis." The City maintains that this court has recognized that departure from a literal construction of a statute "is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and the literal construction in the particular action is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and	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 (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 2011While “there is no necessity or sound legal reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare decisis[,]” id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), we agree with the proposition expressed by the United States Supreme Court that a court should “not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. 2011While "there is no necessity or sound legal reason to perpetuate an error under the doctrine of stare decisis[,]" id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), we agree with the proposition expressed by the United States Supreme Court that a court should "not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification." Hilton v. South Carolina Pub.	5	2001–2011
Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2015Courts should “not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” Garcia, 96 Hawai'i at 206 , 29 P.3d at 925 (quoting Hilton v. South Carolina, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (emphasis original to Garcia)); cf. Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins. 2015Courts should “not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.” Garcia, 96 Hawai'i at 206 , 29 P.3d at 925 (quoting Hilton v. South Carolina, 502 U.S. 197, 202 , 112 S.Ct. 560 , 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) (emphasis original to Garcia)); cf. Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins.	1	2015–2015
State v. Brantley green haw · 2002 1 sentence 2008The import of creating precedent is that we do not “ ‘depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.’ ” Id. at 480, 56 P.3d at 1269 (quoting Garcia, 96 Hawai'i at 206 , 29 P.3d at 925 (citation omitted)).	1	2008–2008
State v. Jumila green haw · 1998 2 sentences 2008Once a decision of this court has become precedent, it establishes the “framework [in which subsequent cases] must be evaluated.” Id. (arguing that Brantley should have been decided under the “framework” of State v. Jumila, 87 Hawai'i 1 , 950 P.2d 1201 (1998)). 2008Once a decision of this court has become precedent, it establishes the "framework [in which subsequent cases] must be evaluated." Id. (arguing that Brantley should have been decided under the "framework" of State v. Jumila, 87 Hawai`i 1, 950 P.2d 1201 (1998)).	1	2008–2008
State v. Mueller green haw · 1983 2 sentences 2007There is no denying that "`[w]hile the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court [or this court], it is clear that among the decisions that an 1113 individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage . . ., procreation . . ., contraception . . ., family relationships . . ., and child rearing and education[,]'" Mueller, 66 Haw. at 627 , 671 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Carey v. Population Servs. 2007There is no denying that "`[w]hile the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court [or this court], it is clear that among the decisions that an 1113 individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage . . ., procreation . . ., contraception . . ., family relationships . . ., and child rearing and education[,]'" Mueller, 66 Haw. at 627 , 671 P.2d at 1359 (quoting Carey v. Population Servs.	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-16 (6) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-15 (5) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-662 (5) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-3 (4) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-205 (4) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-659 (4) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-661 (4) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-669 (4) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291-4 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 632-1 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-670 (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.

Where else courts name it

HI 22 (2001–2025) WV 6 (2002–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check