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.
11 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 4 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. Herngreen2 sentences2023The trial court must also "clearly articulate the effect of the Estencion factors and any other factor it considered in rendering its decision." Id. at 56, 404 P.3d at 322 (quoting State v. Hern, 133 Hawai#i 59, 64, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246 (App. 2013)). 2023The trial court must also "clearly articulate the effect of the Estencion factors and any other factor it considered in rendering its decision." Id. at 56, 404 P.3d at 322 (quoting State v. Hern, 133 Hawai#i 59, 64, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246 (App. 2013)). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Estenciongreen2 sentences2026The trial court must therefore provide an "explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors[,]" and any other factors it considered, "and the basis for its decision." Id. at 55-56, 404 P.3d at 321-22 (emphasis added) (cleaned up) (citing State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 269 , 625 P.2d 1040, 1044 (1981)). 2026The trial court must therefore provide an "explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors[,]" and any other factors it considered, "and the basis for its decision." Id. at 55-56, 404 P.3d at 321-22 (emphasis added) (cleaned up) (citing State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 269 , 625 P.2d 1040, 1044 (1981)). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Moriwakegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 57 , 647 P.2d 705, 713 (1982) (reviewing for abuse of discretion, where the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice). 2025See State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 57 , 647 P.2d 705, 713 (1982) (reviewing for abuse of discretion, where the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguesgreen2 sentences2023Hern, 133 Hawai#i at 61, 323 P.3d at 1243 ; see also State v. Visintin, 143 Hawai#i 143, 157-58, 426 P.3d 367, 381-82 (2018) ("'[I]t is not the role of the appellate court, in the first instance, to make determinations' as to factual issues[.]" (quoting State v. Rodrigues, 122 Hawai#i 229, 238, 225 P.3d 671, 680 (App. 2010))). 2023Hern, 133 Hawai#i at 61, 323 P.3d at 1243 ; see also State v. Visintin, 143 Hawai#i 143, 157-58, 426 P.3d 367, 381-82 (2018) ("'[I]t is not the role of the appellate court, in the first instance, to make determinations' as to factual issues[.]" (quoting State v. Rodrigues, 122 Hawai#i 229, 238, 225 P.3d 671, 680 (App. 2010))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Visintin.green2 sentences2023Hern, 133 Hawai#i at 61, 323 P.3d at 1243 ; see also State v. Visintin, 143 Hawai#i 143, 157-58, 426 P.3d 367, 381-82 (2018) ("'[I]t is not the role of the appellate court, in the first instance, to make determinations' as to factual issues[.]" (quoting State v. Rodrigues, 122 Hawai#i 229, 238, 225 P.3d 671, 680 (App. 2010))). 2023Hern, 133 Hawai#i at 61, 323 P.3d at 1243 ; see also State v. Visintin, 143 Hawai#i 143, 157-58, 426 P.3d 367, 381-82 (2018) ("'[I]t is not the role of the appellate court, in the first instance, to make determinations' as to factual issues[.]" (quoting State v. Rodrigues, 122 Hawai#i 229, 238, 225 P.3d 671, 680 (App. 2010))). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert Lyle Piercegreen1 sentence2017Thus, although every crime may be considered “serious” in a general sense, the trial court in considering the first Estencion factor should determine the relative seriousness of the particular offense at issue, i.e., whether the offense is more serious or less serious for purposes of dismissal under HRPP Rule 48 and not whether an offense is “serious” or “non- serious.” See United States v. Pierce, 17 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1994) (rejecting a “mechanical test” based on federal sentencing guidelines “to label an offense ‘serious’ or ‘not serious’” and requiring courts considering the seriousne | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Raoul Barrie Clymergreen2 sentences2017See State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1247 (App. 2013) (“The trial court’s explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors and the basis for its decision will permit meaningful appellate review.”); United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that the three factors must be balanced and that no one factor is dispositive); United States v. Montecalvo, 861 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that even when seriousness of the offense factor weighs in favor of dismissal without prejudice, “seriousness alone is not determinative” and must be 2017See State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1247 (App. 2013) (“The trial court’s explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors and the basis for its decision will permit meaningful appellate review.”); United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that the three factors must be balanced and that no one factor is dispositive); United States v. Montecalvo, 861 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that even when seriousness of the offense factor weighs in favor of dismissal without prejudice, “seriousness alone is not determinative” and must be | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kimgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Coyaso, 73 Haw. 352, 357 , 833 P.2d 66, 68-69 (1992); State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 64-65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246-47 (App. 2013); State v. Kim, 109 Hawai‘i 59, 62-64, 122 P.3d 1157, 1160-62 (App. 2005). 2017Thus, although every crime may be considered “serious” in a general sense, the trial court in considering the first Estencion factor should determine the relative seriousness of the particular offense at issue, i.e., whether the offense is more serious or less serious for purposes of dismissal under HRPP Rule 48 and not whether an offense is “serious” or “non- serious.” See United States v. Pierce, 17 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1994) (rejecting a “mechanical test” based on federal sentencing guidelines “to label an offense ‘serious’ or ‘not serious’” and requiring courts considering the seriousne | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coyasogreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Coyaso, 73 Haw. 352, 357 , 833 P.2d 66, 68-69 (1992); State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 64-65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246-47 (App. 2013); State v. Kim, 109 Hawai‘i 59, 62-64, 122 P.3d 1157, 1160-62 (App. 2005). 2017See, e.g., State v. Coyaso, 73 Haw. 352, 357 , 833 P.2d 66, 68-69 (1992); State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 64-65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246-47 (App. 2013); State v. Kim, 109 Hawai‘i 59, 62-64, 122 P.3d 1157, 1160-62 (App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Montecalvogreen2 sentences2017See State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1247 (App. 2013) (“The trial court’s explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors and the basis for its decision will permit meaningful appellate review.”); United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that the three factors must be balanced and that no one factor is dispositive); United States v. Montecalvo, 861 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that even when seriousness of the offense factor weighs in favor of dismissal without prejudice, “seriousness alone is not determinative” and must be 2017See State v. Hern, 133 Hawai‘i 59, 65, 323 P.3d 1241, 1247 (App. 2013) (“The trial court’s explanation of its consideration of the Estencion factors and the basis for its decision will permit meaningful appellate review.”); United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that the three factors must be balanced and that no one factor is dispositive); United States v. Montecalvo, 861 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that even when seriousness of the offense factor weighs in favor of dismissal without prejudice, “seriousness alone is not determinative” and must be | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert James Millergreen2 sentences2013United States v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1983). 2013United States v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mageogreen2 sentences2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 | 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. Choy Foo
green
2 sentences2018The ICA Opinion As an initial matter, the ICA agreed with Choy Foo's concession on the State's second point of error, concluding that "at a minimum[ ] the Dismissal Order must be vacated and the case remanded for consideration of the Estencion factors and articulation of necessary findings." State v. Choy Foo , 139 Hawai'i 339 , 342, 389 P.3d 934 , 937 (App. 2016), as amended (Feb. 14, 2017) (citing State v. Hern , 133 Hawai'i 59 , 64-65, 323 P.3d 1241 , 1246-47 (App. 2013) ). 2018The ICA Opinion As an initial matter, the ICA agreed with Choy Foo's concession on the State's second point of error, concluding that "at a minimum[ ] the Dismissal Order must be vacated and the case remanded for consideration of the Estencion factors and articulation of necessary findings." State v. Choy Foo , 139 Hawai'i 339 , 342, 389 P.3d 934 , 937 (App. 2016), as amended (Feb. 14, 2017) (citing State v. Hern , 133 Hawai'i 59 , 64-65, 323 P.3d 1241 , 1246-47 (App. 2013) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hulsman v. Hemmeter Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 2013See Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37 , 108 S.Ct. 2413 ; see also HRPP Rule 12(e) (2007) (“Where factual issues are involved in determining a [pretrial] motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”); Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 n. 16 , 647 P.2d at 713 n. 16 (stating that where trial courts dismiss eases with prejudice based on their inherent power, it is incumbent upon trial courts to express their factual findings in writing to enable appellate courts to conscientiously review the trial courts’ exercise of discretion); State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai'i 33, 38 , 889 P.2d 1092, 1097 (App.199 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.