12 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2010A. In State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 243-44 , 589 P.2d 517, 519 (1978), the Hawai`i Supreme Court quoted the following passage from United States v. Clandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 (1974), regarding the nature of grand jury proceedings: A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated. 2010A. In State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 243-44 , 589 P.2d 517, 519 (1978), the Hawai`i Supreme Court quoted the following passage from United States v. Clandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 (1974), regarding the nature of grand jury proceedings: A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated. | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2010A. In State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 243-44 , 589 P.2d 517, 519 (1978), the Hawai`i Supreme Court quoted the following passage from United States v. Clandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44 (1974), regarding the nature of grand jury proceedings: A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated. 2008The prosecution concedes that a grand jury proceeding could potentially be bifurcated to prevent such contamination but, nonetheless, asserts that such a procedure would unnecessarily complicate the proceeding and be at odds with its purposes, which is not "'an adversary hearing in which guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated'" but, rather, "`an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.'" State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 243-44 , 589 P.2d 517, 519 (1978) (quoting United States v. Calandr | 2 | 5 |
A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansasgreen1 sentence1981See A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, supra; Marcus v. Search Warrant, supra. 9 The Court’s precise holding in this regard was: If such a seizure is pursuant to a warrant, issued after a determination of probable cause by a neutral magistrate, and, following the seizure, a prompt judicial determination of the obscenity issue in an adversary proceeding is available at the request of any interested party, the seizure is constitutionally permissible. | 1 | 1 |
Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1981Cir. 1974) (citing Huffman v. United States, 470 F.2d 386, 392 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Stafford v. Dickisongreen2 sentences1973However, in Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw. 52, 59-60 , 374 P.2d 665, 670 (1962), we cited, with approval, Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), to-wit: [T]he requirement of due process "does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. 1973However, in Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw. 52, 59-60 , 374 P.2d 665, 670 (1962), we cited, with approval, Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), to-wit: [T]he requirement of due process "does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2018After the hearing officer had prepared proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the deputy attorney general who had represented the Superintendent of Education in the adversary hearing against the teacher advised the Board of Education as decision maker with respect to the hearing officer's findings and conclusions. 54 Haw. at 16 , 501 P.2d at 363 . 2018After the hearing officer had prepared proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the deputy attorney general who had represented the Superintendent of Education in the adversary hearing against the teacher advised the Board of Education as decision maker with respect to the hearing officer's findings and conclusions. 54 Haw. at 16 , 501 P.2d at 363 . | 3 | 1990–2018 |
Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property
green
1 sentence1981See A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, supra; Marcus v. Search Warrant, supra. 9 The Court’s precise holding in this regard was: If such a seizure is pursuant to a warrant, issued after a determination of probable cause by a neutral magistrate, and, following the seizure, a prompt judicial determination of the obscenity issue in an adversary proceeding is available at the request of any interested party, the seizure is constitutionally permissible. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Heller v. New York
green
2 sentences1981But they argue the lack of a prompt judicial declaration following an adversary hearing on the obscenity vel non of the films vitiated the seizures. 10 Relying on Heller v. New York, supra, the State counters *608 with an argument that defendants-appellants’ position is untenable because they, like the petitioner in Heller , failed to request prompt judicial declarations on the pertinent issue. 1981Unlike the situation in Heller v. New York, supra, where the petitioner “made no pretrial motions seeking return of the film or challenging its seizure,” 413 U.S. at 490, the record here reveals pretrial challenges to the validity of the seizures by Yuclan and defendants-appellants. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Dennis E. Pryba
green
1 sentence1981They have reasoned that suppression is inappropriate where the seizure is defective for want of an adversary hearing because “the primary right involved is the public’s First Amendment right of access rather than the defendant’s Fourth Amendment immunity from unreasonable search and seizure.” United States v. Pryba, 502 F.2d 391 , 404-05 n.97 (D.C. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Link v. Wabash Railroad
green
2 sentences1973However, in Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw. 52, 59-60 , 374 P.2d 665, 670 (1962), we cited, with approval, Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), to-wit: [T]he requirement of due process "does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. 1973However, in Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw. 52, 59-60 , 374 P.2d 665, 670 (1962), we cited, with approval, Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), to-wit: [T]he requirement of due process "does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Loranger v. Alban
green
1 sentence1962The adequacy of notice and hearing respecting proceedings that may affect a party’s rights turns, to a considerable extent, on the knowledge which *60 the circumstances show such party may be taken to have of the consequences of his own conduct.” In Loranger v. Alban, 22 N.J. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.