11 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Breed Ex Rel. Breed v. Shanergreen2 sentences2024See Breed v. Shaner, 57 Haw. 656, 667 , 562 P.2d 436, 443 (1977) ("In this situation further facts must be 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER adduced on the record to show that the decision to include a curve or other design feature involved the evaluation of broad policy factors before the court can decide that the discretionary function exception applies"); O'Grady, 140 Hawai‘i at 54, 398 P.3d at 643 . 2024See Breed v. Shaner, 57 Haw. 656, 667 , 562 P.2d 436, 443 (1977) ("In this situation further facts must be 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER adduced on the record to show that the decision to include a curve or other design feature involved the evaluation of broad policy factors before the court can decide that the discretionary function exception applies"); O'Grady, 140 Hawai‘i at 54, 398 P.3d at 643 . | 3 | 5 |
Tseu Ex Rel. Hobbs v. Jeytegreen2 sentences2012Petitioner maintains that Jeyte decided there was a private right of action found by this court pursuant to the STLA "for a landlord damaged due to negligent investigation of a housing discrimination complaint by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC).” In deciding that the landlord defendants' counterclaim against the HCRC for negligent investigation should not be dismissed, this court said that "the investigation of a complaint [by the HCRC] does not entail a broad policy decision immune from suit under the discretionary function exception,” 88 Hawai'i at 89 , 962 P.2d at 348 , and "const 2012Petitioner maintains that Jeyte decided there was a private right of action found by this court pursuant to the STLA "for a landlord damaged due to negligent investigation of a housing discrimination complaint by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC).” In deciding that the landlord defendants' counterclaim against the HCRC for negligent investigation should not be dismissed, this court said that "the investigation of a complaint [by the HCRC] does not entail a broad policy decision immune from suit under the discretionary function exception,” 88 Hawai'i at 89 , 962 P.2d at 348 , and "const | 2 | 4 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Taylor-Rice, 91 Hawai'i at 78 , 979 P.2d at 1104 (discussing the analysis in Breed); see also Rogers, 51 Haw. at 297 , 459 P.2d at 381 (noting a federal decision that determined that “the decision to construct a post office building involved discretion but the omission to install handrails was an operational level act”); Julius Rothschild & Co. v. State, 66 Haw. 76, 80 , 655 P.2d 877, 881 (1982) (holding that the discretionary function exception applies to the State’s decision of whether to replace or reconstruct a bridge since “[i]t would require a weighing of priorities at the higher lev 2017See Taylor-Rice, 91 Hawai'i at 78 , 979 P.2d at 1104 (discussing the analysis in Breed); see also Rogers, 51 Haw. at 297 , 459 P.2d at 381 (noting a federal decision that determined that “the decision to construct a post office building involved discretion but the omission to install handrails was an operational level act”); Julius Rothschild & Co. v. State, 66 Haw. 76, 80 , 655 P.2d 877, 881 (1982) (holding that the discretionary function exception applies to the State’s decision of whether to replace or reconstruct a bridge since “[i]t would require a weighing of priorities at the higher lev | 1 | 4 |
Julius Rothschild & Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Taylor-Rice, 91 Hawai'i at 78 , 979 P.2d at 1104 (discussing the analysis in Breed); see also Rogers, 51 Haw. at 297 , 459 P.2d at 381 (noting a federal decision that determined that “the decision to construct a post office building involved discretion but the omission to install handrails was an operational level act”); Julius Rothschild & Co. v. State, 66 Haw. 76, 80 , 655 P.2d 877, 881 (1982) (holding that the discretionary function exception applies to the State’s decision of whether to replace or reconstruct a bridge since “[i]t would require a weighing of priorities at the higher lev 2017See Taylor-Rice, 91 Hawai'i at 78 , 979 P.2d at 1104 (discussing the analysis in Breed); see also Rogers, 51 Haw. at 297 , 459 P.2d at 381 (noting a federal decision that determined that “the decision to construct a post office building involved discretion but the omission to install handrails was an operational level act”); Julius Rothschild & Co. v. State, 66 Haw. 76, 80 , 655 P.2d 877, 881 (1982) (holding that the discretionary function exception applies to the State’s decision of whether to replace or reconstruct a bridge since “[i]t would require a weighing of priorities at the higher lev | 1 | 2 |
O'Grady v. State.green2 sentences2024Regarding the Discretionary Function Exception of HRS § 662-15, "the State bears the burden to assert and prove the application of the discretionary function exception," and its scope must be determined "on a case-by-case basis." O'Grady v. State, 140 Hawai‘i 36, 53-55, 398 P.3d 625, 642-44 (2017). 2024See Breed v. Shaner, 57 Haw. 656, 667 , 562 P.2d 436, 443 (1977) ("In this situation further facts must be 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER adduced on the record to show that the decision to include a curve or other design feature involved the evaluation of broad policy factors before the court can decide that the discretionary function exception applies"); O'Grady, 140 Hawai‘i at 54, 398 P.3d at 643 . | 1 | 1 |
Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g„ Doe Parents No. 1 v. Dep’t of Educ., 100 Hawai'i 34, 68 , 58 P.3d 545, 579 (2002). 2017See, e.g„ Doe Parents No. 1 v. Dep’t of Educ., 100 Hawai'i 34, 68 , 58 P.3d 545, 579 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Zimring, 52 Haw. at 478 , 479 P.2d at 206 (citing Stewart v. United States, 199 F.2d 517, 620 (7th Cir. 1962)) 20 (concluding that any exceptions from the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity “is a matter of defense”); see also 61A Am. 2017The exceptions provided for in HRS § 662-15 define the scope of the application of the State Tort Liability Act and, consequently, the scope of tort claims that may be brought against the State. 20 , Stewart held that if the government desires to rely on the discretionary function exception, it has a right to do so in defense of the action, "providing such defense is aptly pleaded and proven." 199 F.2d at 520 . 21 . | 1 | 1 |
Parrott v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017Thus, the State bears the burden to assert and prove the application of the discretionary function exception to liability under the State Tort Liability Act, See Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629, 634-35 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the discretionary function exception operates as an affirmative defense to the Federal Tort Claim Act). 21 The issue that is presented in this case is whether the State is liable for its failure to have a routine, coordinated system of rockfall mitigation at the operational level. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor-Rice v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Taylor-Rice v. State, 91 Hawai'i 60, 77 , 979 P.2d 1086, 1103 (1999) (discussing the discretionary function exception separately from the elements of negligence). 2017See Taylor-Rice v. State, 91 Hawai'i 60, 77 , 979 P.2d 1086, 1103 (1999) (discussing the discretionary function exception separately from the elements of negligence). | 1 | 1 |
Giovanna Carboniero Cestonaro, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Danielle Cestonaro v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi 2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi 2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi 2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Schackelgreen1 sentence2013Id. at 1172 (Stewart, C.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor-Rice v. Stategreen2 sentences2007We disagree. “[I]t is well established that the State’s liability is limited by its sovereign immunity, except where there has been a ‘clear relinquishment’ of immunity and the State has consented to be sued.” Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai'i 104, 109-10 , 94 P.3d 659, 664-65 (2004) (citation omitted). 2007We disagree. "[I]t is well established that the State's liability is limited by its sovereign immunity, except where there has been a `clear relinquishment' of immunity and the State has consented to be sued." Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai`i 104, 109-10, 94 P.3d 659, 664-65 (2004) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Crenshaw v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1998See Crenshaw v. United States, 959 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.Tex.1997). | 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 Ex Rel. Kobayashi v. Zimring
green
2 sentences2017Zimring, 52 Haw. at 478 , 479 P.2d at 206 (citing Stewart v. United States, 199 F.2d 517, 620 (7th Cir. 1962)) 20 (concluding that any exceptions from the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity “is a matter of defense”); see also 61A Am. 2017Zimring, 52 Haw. at 478 , 479 P.2d at 206 (citing Stewart v. United States, 199 F.2d 517, 620 (7th Cir. 1962)) 20 (concluding that any exceptions from the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity “is a matter of defense”); see also 61A Am. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
cluster 741892
green
2 sentences2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi 2017Many other jurisdictions consider similar exceptions to be affirmative defenses, although there is some disagreement. 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters 3d § 3658 (4th ed. 2015) (“The plaintiff bears tire initial burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, but generally it is held that the Government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, although there is disagreement."); see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1023 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The discretionary functi | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rodrigues v. State
green
2 sentences1998Adoption of the Gaubert standard would run directly contrary to our past holdings that the discretionary function exception did not apply to the act of designing a highway, Breed v. Shaner, supra, the placement of road signs and strip-ings, Rogers v. State, 51 Haw. 293 , 459 P.2d 378 (1969), or the maintenance of drainage culverts, Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P.2d 509 (1970). 1998Adoption of the Gaubert standard would run directly contrary to our past holdings that the discretionary function exception did not apply to the act of designing a highway, Breed v. Shaner, supra, the placement of road signs and strip-ings, Rogers v. State, 51 Haw. 293 , 459 P.2d 378 (1969), or the maintenance of drainage culverts, Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156 , 472 P.2d 509 (1970). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Gaubert
green
2 sentences1998Both the HCRC and the State of Hawaii, as amicus curiae, cite to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991), in support of the argument that the HCRC’s investigation entails a discretionary function. 1998Both the HCRC and the State of Hawaii, as amicus curiae, cite to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991), in support of the argument that the HCRC’s investigation entails a discretionary function. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Leopold W. Mahler and Helen E. Mahler, His Wife, and Bertha Ebertsheim v. United States
green
1 sentence1977The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressed this proposition in United States v. Hunsucker, supra note 7, at 103: Where discretion ends and actionable negligence begins for the purpose of this exception cannot be defined without reference to the factual situations in which the question of applicability of the exception has arisen. *668 The State has cited Mahler v. United States, 306 F.2d 713 (3rd Cir. 1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 293 (1962), in support of its contention that highway design is a discretionary function as a matter of law. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sisley v. United States
green
1 sentence1970The State's sole reliance on Sisley and Shank v. United States, 202 F. Supp. 273 (D.Alaska 1962) for the proposition that maintenance of a culvert is within the scope of the discretionary function exception is misplaced. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
The American Exchange Bank of Madison, Wisconsin, as of the Estate of Pauline H. Williams, Deceased v. United States
green
1 sentence1969Indian Towing Co. v. United States, supra; American Exchange Bank of Madison v. United States, 257 F.2d 938 (1958); United States v. Hunsucker, 314 F.2d 98 (9th Cir. 1962). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
United States v. Thomas O. Hunsucker and Eva Newman Hunsucker
green
1 sentence1969Indian Towing Co. v. United States, supra; American Exchange Bank of Madison v. United States, 257 F.2d 938 (1958); United States v. Hunsucker, 314 F.2d 98 (9th Cir. 1962). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.