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.
21 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Masaki v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2024The Circuit Court quoted and applied the clear and convincing standard set forth supra from Masaki, 71 Haw. at 16-17 , 780 P.2d at 575 , stating: Proof of conduct necessary to support an award of punitive damages must be by clear and convincing evidence. 2024The Circuit Court quoted and applied the clear and convincing standard set forth supra from Masaki, 71 Haw. at 16-17 , 780 P.2d at 575 , stating: Proof of conduct necessary to support an award of punitive damages must be by clear and convincing evidence. | 4 | 7 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 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)). | 2 | 4 |
Kekona v. Abastillasgreen2 sentences2018As this court stated in Kekona , a clear and convincing standard of proof is "required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals...." Id. at 181 , 150 P.3d at 830 . 2018As this court stated in Kekona , a clear and convincing standard of proof is "required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals...." Id. at 181 , 150 P.3d at 830 . | 2 | 4 |
Carr v. Strodegreen2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 2 | 3 |
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 | 4 |
Goo v. Continental Casualty Companygreen2 sentences2025See Goo, 52 Haw. at 239 , 473 P.2d at 566 ; Masaki, 71 Haw. at 26 , 780 P.2d at 580 . 4. 2025See Goo, 52 Haw. at 239 , 473 P.2d at 566 ; Masaki, 71 Haw. at 26 , 780 P.2d at 580 . 4. | 1 | 1 |
Ralston v. Yim. ICA Opinion, filed 05/31/2012.green1 sentence2024See Ralston, 129 Hawaiʻi at 55, 292 P.3d at 1285 ; Kekona, 113 Hawaiʻi at 181, 150 P.3d at 830 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trainorgreen1 sentence2022We also have stated that "a trial court's determination as to whether a reasonable person would suffer emotional distress as a result of a course of conduct is reviewed on appeal de novo." Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (citing State v. Trainor, 83 Hawai#i 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996)). 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER We account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support the court's findings made under this standard, as follows: When reviewing a finding | 1 | 1 |
Luat v. Cachogreen1 sentence2022We also have stated that "a trial court's determination as to whether a reasonable person would suffer emotional distress as a result of a course of conduct is reviewed on appeal de novo." Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (citing State v. Trainor, 83 Hawai#i 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996)). 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER We account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support the court's findings made under this standard, as follows: When reviewing a finding | 1 | 1 |
Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Hawai'i, Ltd.green2 sentences2008See, e.g., Kekona v. Abastillas, 113 Hawai'i 174, 181 , 150 P.3d 823, 830 (2006) (holding that the proper standard of proof for a civil fraudulent transfer proceeding was the clear and convincing standard of proof inasmuch as a finding of liability for a fraudulent transfer produces reputational harm that should not be inflicted absent that degree of proof); Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Hawai'i 149, 171 , 58 P.3d 1196, 1218 (2002) (recognizing that the tort of defamation protects the interest of reputation). 2008See, e.g., Kekona v. Abastillas, 113 Hawai`i 174, 181, 150 P.3d 823, 830 (2006) (holding that the proper standard of proof for a civil fraudulent transfer proceeding was the clear and convincing standard of proof inasmuch as a finding of liability for a fraudulent transfer produces reputational harm that should not be inflicted absent that degree of proof); Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Hawai`i 149, 171, 58 P.3d 1196, 1218 (2002) (recognizing that the tort of defamation protects the interest of reputation). | 1 | 1 |
Paul v. Davisgreen2 sentences2008See also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (holding that harm to reputation coupled with some more tangible interest is sufficient to invoke the Due Process Clause). [13] According to the court in Bohn, Mr. Bohn forcibly interceded to break up a fight between his two sons, one of whom then ran to a neighbor's house as a result. 2008See also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (holding that harm to reputation coupled with some more tangible interest is sufficient to invoke the Due Process Clause). [13] According to the court in Bohn, Mr. Bohn forcibly interceded to break up a fight between his two sons, one of whom then ran to a neighbor's house as a result. | 1 | 1 |
DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp.green2 sentences2006In DeNuptiis , the Supreme Court of Alaska considered “whether the [state] Workers’ Compensation Board [ (board) ] erred in applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to an employer’s claim for reimbursement of benefits based on fraud” when the state workers’ compensation fraud statute ■was silent on the standard of proof. 63 P.3d at 275 . 2006Therefore, the court “concludefd] that the board’s application of the clear and convincing standard ... was not a reasonable interpretation of governing law.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Coyle v. Comptongreen2 sentences1999Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai'i 197, 208 , 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App.1997) (citations and internal brackets omitted). 1999Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai'i 197, 208 , 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App.1997) (citations and internal brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp
green
2 sentences2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). 2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). | 4 | 1996–2019 |
Iddings v. Mee-Lee
green
2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 3 | 1996–2018 |
Onasai Tanuvasa v. City of Honolulu
neutral
2 sentences2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). 1999See, e.g., Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive *337 damages); Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266 , 832 P.2d 259 (1992) (constructive trust); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp, | 3 | 1996–2006 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Mehau v. Gannett Pacific Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). 2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Maria v. Freitas
green
2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Cresencia v. Kim
green
2 sentences2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). 2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Calleon v. Miyagi
green
2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Boteilho v. Boteilho
green
2 sentences2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). 2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Chan v. Chan
green
2 sentences2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). 2006Corp., 66 Haw. 133 , 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85 , 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (termination of parental rights); Boteilho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40 , 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (oral contract for sale of real estate); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122 , 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (civil contempt); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102 , 626 P.2d 1176 (1981) (proof that government official acted with malice)). | 3 | 1996–2006 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam 2006“In keeping with these principles, Hawaii’s appellate courts have implemented the clear and convincing standard of proof in a myriad of situations.” Iddings, 82 Hawai'i at 14 , 919 P.2d at 276 (citing Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive dam | 3 | 1996–2006 |
Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu
green
2 sentences1999See, e.g., Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive *337 damages); Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266 , 832 P.2d 259 (1992) (constructive trust); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp, 1996See, e.g., Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawai'i 475 , 904 P.2d 489 (1995) (proof to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194 , 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (proof to establish that criminal defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433 , 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (inevitable discovery rule); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461 , 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (fraud); Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310 , 876 P.2d 1278 (1994) (punitive damages); Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266 , 832 P.2d 259 (1992) (constructive trust); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp, 70 H | 2 | 1996–1999 |
County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2022POE 4 is thus deemed waived.10/ See C & J Coupe Family, 119 Hawai#i at 373, 198 P.3d at 636 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations
green
2 sentences2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). 2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Addington, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (holding that clear and convincing standard is required by due process in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital because civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection); Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (holding the due process rights of one acquitted by insanity are not violated when he or she is committed on a determination of risk of danger to self 1997Cf. Addington, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (holding that clear and convincing standard is required by due process in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital because civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection); Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (holding the due process rights of one acquitted by insanity are not violated when he or she is committed on a determination of risk of danger to self | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Thompson v. Yuen
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Addington, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (holding that clear and convincing standard is required by due process in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital because civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection); Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (holding the due process rights of one acquitted by insanity are not violated when he or she is committed on a determination of risk of danger to self 1997Cf. Addington, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (holding that clear and convincing standard is required by due process in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital because civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection); Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (holding the due process rights of one acquitted by insanity are not violated when he or she is committed on a determination of risk of danger to self | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 366-67 , 103 S.Ct. at 3050-51 . 1997Id. at 366-67 , 103 S.Ct. at 3050-51 . | 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.