particularized application principle in Hawaii

12 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Richiegreen haw · 1998 · cited in 8 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–2020 2 sentences 2018See State v. Staley , 91 Hawai'i 275 , 281, 982 P.2d 904 , 910 (1999). " HRE [Rule] 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404 ), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 37, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1245 (1998) (citation omitted). 2018See State v. Staley , 91 Hawai'i 275 , 281, 982 P.2d 904 , 910 (1999). " HRE [Rule] 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404 ), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 37, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1245 (1998) (citation omitted).	7	8
State v. Alstongreen haw · 1994 · cited in 5 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1999 2 sentences 1999“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. (quoting State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994)). 1999“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. (quoting State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994)).	5	5
State v. Staleygreen haw · 1999 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Staley , 91 Hawai'i 275 , 281, 982 P.2d 904 , 910 (1999). " HRE [Rule] 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404 ), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 37, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1245 (1998) (citation omitted). 2018See State v. Staley , 91 Hawai'i 275 , 281, 982 P.2d 904 , 910 (1999). " HRE [Rule] 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404 ), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 37, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1245 (1998) (citation omitted).	1	1
State v. Arceogreen haw · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (brackets in original) (some citations omitted). 2. 1999State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 11 , 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (brackets in original) (some citations omitted). 2.	1	1
State v. Ganalgreen haw · 1996 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.’” State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 373 , 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 873 P.2d 51 1996“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.’” State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 373 , 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 873 P.2d 51	1	1
State v. Furutanigreen haw · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.’” State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 373 , 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 873 P.2d 51 1996“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.’” State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 373 , 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 873 P.2d 51	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 (1)

Case	Cited	Years
Walsh v. Chan green haw · 1995 2 sentences 1999“HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. (quoting State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538 , 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994)). 1998“HRE 404[ 13 ] represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. (quoting State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538, 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994)).	2	1998–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 701-114 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-204 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-206 (3) HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-304 (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 12 (1996–2020) TX 4 (2015–2015)

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