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 1 courts 1912–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagatagreen2 sentences2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (stating that "courts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable" (citation omitted)); cf. *1284 Bender v. Easson, 216 N.Y.S.2d 393 , 394 (1961) (concluding that a party's failure to serve his notice of appeal in accordance with the dictates of Sections 702(2) and 708 of the New York Real Property Tax Law divested that court of jurisdiction to hear his appeal inasmuch as Section 702(2) specifically stated that "[i]f . . . the petition or petition and notice . . . were 2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (stating that "courts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable" (citation omitted)); cf. *1284 Bender v. Easson, 216 N.Y.S.2d 393 , 394 (1961) (concluding that a party's failure to serve his notice of appeal in accordance with the dictates of Sections 702(2) and 708 of the New York Real Property Tax Law divested that court of jurisdiction to hear his appeal inasmuch as Section 702(2) specifically stated that "[i]f . . . the petition or petition and notice . . . were | 6 | 6 |
Ringor v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See State v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105 , 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211 , 1214 n. 4 (1996) (“The legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction!;,] and illogicality.” (Citation omitted.)); Ree fshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (“[C]ourts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable.”); Ringor v. State, 88 Hawai'i 229, 233 , 965 P.2d 162, 166 (App.1998) (“[L]egisla-tive enactments are presumptively valid and should be interpret 2002See State v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105 , 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211 , 1214 n. 4 (1996) (“The legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction!;,] and illogicality.” (Citation omitted.)); Ree fshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (“[C]ourts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable.”); Ringor v. State, 88 Hawai'i 229, 233 , 965 P.2d 162, 166 (App.1998) (“[L]egisla-tive enactments are presumptively valid and should be interpret | 2 | 2 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2002See State v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105 , 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211 , 1214 n. 4 (1996) (“The legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction!;,] and illogicality.” (Citation omitted.)); Ree fshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (“[C]ourts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable.”); Ringor v. State, 88 Hawai'i 229, 233 , 965 P.2d 162, 166 (App.1998) (“[L]egisla-tive enactments are presumptively valid and should be interpret 2002See State v. Griffin, 83 Hawai'i 105 , 108 n. 4, 924 P.2d 1211 , 1214 n. 4 (1996) (“The legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction!;,] and illogicality.” (Citation omitted.)); Ree fshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (“[C]ourts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable.”); Ringor v. State, 88 Hawai'i 229, 233 , 965 P.2d 162, 166 (App.1998) (“[L]egisla-tive enactments are presumptively valid and should be interpret | 2 | 2 |
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Schnackgreen2 sentences2008See Ajimine, 39 Haw. at 550 (holding that “where ... the [legislature declares a particular use to be a public use[,] the presumption is in favor of this declaration ... unless such use is clearly and palpably of a private character[,]” however, “that does not mean that either the decision of the legislature or the presumption is conclusive, for the issue of public use is a judicial question and one of law to be decided on the facts and cimimstances of each particular case ” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases added)); 33 see also Kelo, 545 U.S. at 478 , 125 S.Ct. 2655 (s 2008See Ajimine, 39 Haw. at 550 (holding that "where ... the [l]egislature declares a particular use to be a public use[,] the presumption is in favor of this declaration ... unless such use is clearly and palpably of a private character [,]" however, "that does not mean that either the decision of the legislature or the presumption is conclusive, for the issue of public use is a judicial question and one of law to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each particular case " (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases added)); [33] see also Kelo, 545 U.S. at 478 , 125 S.Ct. 26 | 1 | 2 |
In Town Hotels Ltd. Partbership v. Marriott Inter., Inc.green1 sentence2013Cf. Town Hotels, 246 F.Supp.2d at 476 (concluding that the language in Brunswick and Atlantic Richfield regarding anticompet-itive effect is “not relevant” when the purposes of the antitrust law at issue go beyond the protection of competition). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Dodendorfgreen2 sentences2006It may be further observed that "[w]hen a statute specifies what result will ensue if its terms are not complied with, the statute is deemed mandatory." Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill.App.3d 557 , 137 Ill.Dec. 468 , 546 N.E.2d 92, 93 (1989) (citation omitted). 2006It may be further observed that "[w]hen a statute specifies what result will ensue if its terms are not complied with, the statute is deemed mandatory." Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill.App.3d 557 , 137 Ill.Dec. 468 , 546 N.E.2d 92, 93 (1989) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Levy v. Kimballgreen2 sentences2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988); see also, Levy v. Kimball, 51 Haw. 540, 544 , 465 P.2d 580, 583 (1970) (legislature's omission of portion of federal statute must be seen as intentional rather than as an oversight). 2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988); see also, Levy v. Kimball, 51 Haw. 540, 544 , 465 P.2d 580, 583 (1970) (legislature's omission of portion of federal statute must be seen as intentional rather than as an oversight). | 1 | 1 |
Marsland v. Panggreen2 sentences2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (stating that "courts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable"); Marsland v. Pang, 5 Haw.App. 463, 485 , 701 P.2d 175, 192 (1985) (assuming that the legislature was aware of the state of the law of nuisance abatement at the time it enacted another nuisance statute). 2006See Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 98 , 762 P.2d 169, 173 (1988) (stating that "courts will not presume an oversight on the part of the legislature where such presumption is avoidable"); Marsland v. Pang, 5 Haw.App. 463, 485 , 701 P.2d 175, 192 (1985) (assuming that the legislature was aware of the state of the law of nuisance abatement at the time it enacted another nuisance statute). | 1 | 1 |
Hamano v. Miyakegreen1 sentence1988Hamano v. Miyake, 24 Haw. 12, 14 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rodrigues
green
2 sentences2002Relying on cases from other jurisdictions, this court in Rodrigues observed that the phrase “as provided by law” has been interpreted as “a direction to the legislature to enact implementing legislation,” that “the subject matter which this phrase modifies is not locked into the Constitution but may be dealt with by the Legislature as it deems appropriate,” and that the phrase “directs the legislature to provide the rule by which the general right which it (the constitutional provision) grants may be enjoyed and protected.” Id., 629 P.2d at 1114 . 2002Relying on cases from other jurisdictions, this court in Rodrigues observed that the phrase “as provided by law” has been interpreted as “a direction to the legislature to enact implementing legislation,” that “the subject matter which this phrase modifies is not locked into the Constitution but may be dealt with by the Legislature as it deems appropriate,” and that the phrase “directs the legislature to provide the rule by which the general right which it (the constitutional provision) grants may be enjoyed and protected.” Id., 629 P.2d at 1114 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Kelo v. City of New London
green
2 sentences2008See Ajimine, 39 Haw. at 550 (holding that "where ... the [l]egislature declares a particular use to be a public use[,] the presumption is in favor of this declaration ... unless such use is clearly and palpably of a private character [,]" however, "that does not mean that either the decision of the legislature or the presumption is conclusive, for the issue of public use is a judicial question and one of law to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each particular case " (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases added)); [33] see also Kelo, 545 U.S. at 478 , 125 S.Ct. 26 2008See Ajimine, 39 Haw. at 550 (holding that "where ... the [l]egislature declares a particular use to be a public use[,] the presumption is in favor of this declaration ... unless such use is clearly and palpably of a private character [,]" however, "that does not mean that either the decision of the legislature or the presumption is conclusive, for the issue of public use is a judicial question and one of law to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each particular case " (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases added)); [33] see also Kelo, 545 U.S. at 478 , 125 S.Ct. 26 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wood v. Mears
neutral
1 sentence1912A section in the charter of an Indiana city gave to the common council exclusive power over streets, etc. The supreme court of Indiana in the case of Wood v. Mears, 12 Ind. 515 , after recognizing that if the authority is sufficient municipalities may pass ordinances conflicting with statutes, says: “This section confers upon the common council plenary powers over the streets and alleys of the city. * * * In the language of Harris, J., in the case of Milhau v. Sharp, 17 Barb. 437 , * * * ‘In this respect it (the municipality) is endowed with legislative sovereignty: The exercise of that sovere | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.