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.
13 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Criss v. Kunisadagreen2 sentences2016Consequently, there may be instances where HFCR Rule 68 would go beyond merely effectuating the purpose for which it was created--to “encourage settlements . . . before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.” Nakasone v. Nakasone, 102 Hawaiʻi 177, 181, 73 P.3d 715, 719 (2003) (quoting Criss, 89 Hawaiʻi at 22, 968 P.2d at 189 ). 2016Consequently, there may be instances where HFCR Rule 68 would go beyond merely effectuating the purpose for which it was created—to “encourage settlements ... before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.” Nakasone v. Nakasone, 102 Hawai'i 177, 181 , 73 P.3d 715, 719 (2003) (quoting Criss, 89 Hawai'i at 22 , 968 P.2d at 189 ). | 2 | 3 |
Wood v. Woodgreen2 sentences2003The “primary purpose of HFCR Rule 68 is to encourage settlements ‘more than 10 days before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.’ ” Wood v. Wood, 82 Hawai'i 539, 541 , 923 P.2d 956, 958 (App.1996) (quoting HFCR Rule 68); [c]f. 2003The “primary purpose of HFCR Rule 68 is to encourage settlements ‘more than 10 days before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.’ ” Wood v. Wood, 82 Hawai'i 539, 541 , 923 P.2d 956, 958 (App.1996) (quoting HFCR Rule 68); [c]f. | 2 | 2 |
In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated July 17, 1984.green1 sentence2024See In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Tr., 147 Hawai#i at 465-66, 465 P.3d at 912-13 . (5) The Perez Sons argue that the Probate Court erred in denying their request to refer the case to the civil trials calendar for a contested hearing pursuant to the Hawai#i Probate Rules (HPR) Rule 20. | 1 | 1 |
Kema v. Gaddisgreen1 sentence2020See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action).1 Accordingly, and under these circumstances, 1 The Planning Commission’s timely resolution of this issue does not depend on whether the parties are able to reach an agreement as to public access to the contested hearing. 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is | 1 | 1 |
Nakasone v. Nakasonegreen2 sentences2016Consequently, there may be instances where HFCR Rule 68 would go beyond merely effectuating the purpose for which it was created--to “encourage settlements . . . before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.” Nakasone v. Nakasone, 102 Hawaiʻi 177, 181, 73 P.3d 715, 719 (2003) (quoting Criss, 89 Hawaiʻi at 22, 968 P.2d at 189 ). 2016Consequently, there may be instances where HFCR Rule 68 would go beyond merely effectuating the purpose for which it was created—to “encourage settlements ... before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin.” Nakasone v. Nakasone, 102 Hawai'i 177, 181 , 73 P.3d 715, 719 (2003) (quoting Criss, 89 Hawai'i at 22 , 968 P.2d at 189 ). | 1 | 1 |
Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examinersgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, “despite petitioner’s repeated requests for clarification, the Board did not notify petitioner until after the contested hearing had begun of the rule that he allegedly violated.” Id. at 1105 (footnote omitted). 2014Moreover, “despite petitioner’s repeated requests for clarification, the Board did not notify petitioner until after the contested hearing had begun of the rule that he allegedly violated.” Id. at 1105 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2010On the contrary, it always remains the independent responsibility of the court to decide the law applicable to a particular case and the legal sufficiency of the evidence in regard to a contested claim.”); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 , 1004 including n. 11 (Alaska 1981) (parties may agree as to the facts, but cannot control any question of law to be determined under them; parties' concessions regarding interpretation of law are not binding upon the courts); Leonard v. Los Angeles, 31 Cal.App.3d 473 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 378, 380 (1973) (citations omitted) (“it is gene 2010On the contrary, it always remains the independent responsibility of the court to decide the law applicable to a particular case and the legal sufficiency of the evidence in regard to a contested claim.”); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 , 1004 including n. 11 (Alaska 1981) (parties may agree as to the facts, but cannot control any question of law to be determined under them; parties' concessions regarding interpretation of law are not binding upon the courts); Leonard v. Los Angeles, 31 Cal.App.3d 473 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 378, 380 (1973) (citations omitted) (“it is gene | 1 | 1 |
Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co.green2 sentences2010Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 810 , 278 P.2d 91, 97 (1955) ("a stipulation as to the legal effect of the facts [is] a conclusion of law. 2010Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 810 , 278 P.2d 91, 97 (1955) ("a stipulation as to the legal effect of the facts [is] a conclusion of law. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Water Use Permit Applicationsgreen2 sentences2006In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 110 , 9 P.3d 409, 422 (2000) [hereinafter, Waiahole I]. 2006In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 110 , 9 P.3d 409, 422 (2000) [hereinafter, Waiahole I]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of As
green
2 sentences2019What is the minimum showing/quantum of evidence sufficient to require a contested hearing on the proposed change of placement pursuant to In the Interest of A.S., 132 H. 368 , 322 P.3d 263 (2014), and did Petitioner’s July 13, 2017, request for a contested hearing meet that standard? 3. 2019What is the minimum showing/quantum of evidence sufficient to require a contested hearing on the proposed change of placement pursuant to In the Interest of A.S., 132 H. 368 , 322 P.3d 263 (2014), and did Petitioner’s July 13, 2017, request for a contested hearing meet that standard? 3. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Langaman v. Mike Salta Pontiac, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998In this appeal, we consider the application of HFCR Rule 68. 9 The “primary purpose [of HFCR Rule 68 is to] encourag[e] settlements ‘more than [10] days before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin[.]’ ” Wood v. Wood, 82 Hawai'i 539, 541 , 923 P.2d 956, 958 (App.1996) (quoting HFCR Rule 68); Cf. Langaman v. Mike Salta Pontiac, Inc., 4 Haw.App. 57 , 67 n. 9, 659 P.2d 752 , 758 n. 9 (1983) (“[Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)] Rule 68 [(1972)] ‘encourages settlements and discourages vexatious suits and thus diminishes the burden of litigati 1998In this appeal, we consider the application of HFCR Rule 68. 9 The “primary purpose [of HFCR Rule 68 is to] encourag[e] settlements ‘more than [10] days before a contested matrimonial trial or a contested hearing for an order is scheduled to begin[.]’ ” Wood v. Wood, 82 Hawai'i 539, 541 , 923 P.2d 956, 958 (App.1996) (quoting HFCR Rule 68); Cf. Langaman v. Mike Salta Pontiac, Inc., 4 Haw.App. 57 , 67 n. 9, 659 P.2d 752 , 758 n. 9 (1983) (“[Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)] Rule 68 [(1972)] ‘encourages settlements and discourages vexatious suits and thus diminishes the burden of litigati | 2 | 1998–2003 |
State Ex Rel. Kobayashi v. Zimring
green
2 sentences2018Thus, this point of error is also without merit. 1 "The Mahele (meaning 'division' or 'share') ... was a process with multiple divisions or allocations of land" that laid the foundations for the private ownership of real property within the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise 13 (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie et al. eds., 2015). 2 "Konohiki in ancient Hawaii were agents of the King or chiefs." Zimring , 58 Haw. at 112 n.4, 566 P.2d at 730 n.4. 3 The Mission Statement of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-which is presumably intended to guide the agency in its managemen 2018Thus, this point of error is also without merit. 1 "The Mahele (meaning 'division' or 'share') ... was a process with multiple divisions or allocations of land" that laid the foundations for the private ownership of real property within the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise 13 (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie et al. eds., 2015). 2 "Konohiki in ancient Hawaii were agents of the King or chiefs." Zimring , 58 Haw. at 112 n.4, 566 P.2d at 730 n.4. 3 The Mission Statement of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-which is presumably intended to guide the agency in its managemen | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Leeming v. Leeming
green
2 sentences2016Decision-making in which parties to a family court proceeding engage in the course of litigation too often involves “interrelated as well as unrelated motives and problems, where far more may be at stake than the mere dollar amount of a support award.” Leeming, 490 P.2d at 345 . 2016Decision-making in which parties to a family court proceeding engage in the course of litigation too often involves “interrelated as well as unrelated motives and problems, where far more may be at stake than the mere dollar amount of a support award.” Leeming, 490 P.2d at 345 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2010On the contrary, it always remains the independent responsibility of the court to decide the law applicable to a particular case and the legal sufficiency of the evidence in regard to a contested claim."); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 , 1004 including n. 11 (Alaska 1981) (parties may agree as to the facts, but cannot control any question of law to be determined under them; parties' concessions regarding interpretation of law are not binding upon the courts); Leonard v. Los Angeles, 31 Cal.App.3d 473 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 378, 380 (1973) (citations omitted) ("it is gene 2010On the contrary, it always remains the independent responsibility of the court to decide the law applicable to a particular case and the legal sufficiency of the evidence in regard to a contested claim.”); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dept. of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 , 1004 including n. 11 (Alaska 1981) (parties may agree as to the facts, but cannot control any question of law to be determined under them; parties' concessions regarding interpretation of law are not binding upon the courts); Leonard v. Los Angeles, 31 Cal.App.3d 473 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 378, 380 (1973) (citations omitted) (“it is gene | 1 | 2010–2010 |
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Commission of Honolulu
green
2 sentences2008As to item (a) above, the ICA argues that even though a public hearing was required under HRS § 281-57, Petitioner’s case was not a contested hearing because “there [was] no express requirement imposed by HRS chapter 281 or any other statute that the Commission hold a contested-case hearing when it considers an application for a liquor license.” E & J Lounge, 116 Hawai'i at 549 , 174 P.3d at 388 . 2008As to item (a) above, the ICA argues that even though a public hearing was required under HRS § 281-57, Petitioner’s case was not a contested hearing because “there [was] no express requirement imposed by HRS chapter 281 or any other statute that the Commission hold a contested-case hearing when it considers an application for a liquor license.” E & J Lounge, 116 Hawai'i at 549 , 174 P.3d at 388 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.