explained factors in Hawaii

2023The court explained that the standard for the review of a motion to dismiss “is generally limited to the allegations in the complaint, which must be deemed true for purposes of the motion,” Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 113 Hawai‘i 251, 266, 151 P.3d 732, 747 (2007), but courts are “not required to accept conclusory allegations,” Civ.

2016The court explained that these factors are considered to determine whether “the agen- ay’s decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted so as to make the ultimate judgment of the agency unfair, either to an innocent party or to the public interest that the agency was obliged to protect.” PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 564.

2015In Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority, 55 Haw. 478 , 522 P.2d 1255 (1974), this court explained that a claim of due process requires a two-step inquiry: “(1) is the particular interest which the claimant seeks to protect by a hearing ‘property’ within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, and (2) if the interest is ‘property,’ what specific procedures are required to protect it.” Id. at 495 , 522 P.2d at 1266 .

2015In Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority, 55 Haw. 478 , 522 P.2d 1255 (1974), this court explained that a claim of due process requires a two-step inquiry: “(1) is the particular interest which the claimant seeks to protect by a hearing ‘property’ within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, and (2) if the interest is ‘property,’ what specific procedures are required to protect it.” Id. at 495 , 522 P.2d at 1266 .

2013See State v. Wong, 73 Haw. 81 , 829 P.2d 1325 (1992) (holding that defendant was statutorily entitled to be informed of grounds for court’s revocation of probation under HRS § 706-625(b), vacating order revoking probation and remanding “for rehearing upon the State’s providing proper notice”).

2013See State v. Wong, 73 Haw. 81 , 829 P.2d 1325 (1992) (holding that defendant was statutorily entitled to be informed of grounds for court’s revocation of probation under HRS § 706-625(b), vacating order revoking probation and remanding “for rehearing upon the State’s providing proper notice”).

2008In this connection, the majority relies upon In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 95 Hawai`i 33, 40, 18 P.3d 895, 902 (2001), wherein this court explained that the violation of a notice provision is so serious as to render a judgment void if the violation deprives a party of due process.

2008In this connection, the majority relies upon In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 95 Hawai'i 33, 40 , 18 P.3d 895, 902 (2001), wherein this court explained that the violation of a notice provision is so serious as to render a judgment void if the violation deprives a party of due process.

1996In State v. Ikezawa, 75 Haw. 210, 857 P.2d 593 (1993), the court explained that factors to be considered in determining whether to apply a decision retroactively include: (1) “[p]rior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retroactive operation will further or retard its operation; [and (2) ] interests in the administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. at 220 , 857 P.2d at 598 (citation omitted).

1996In State v. Ikezawa, 75 Haw. 210, 857 P.2d 593 (1993), the court explained that factors to be considered in determining whether to apply a decision retroactively include: (1) “[p]rior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retroactive operation will further or retard its operation; [and (2) ] interests in the administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. at 220 , 857 P.2d at 598 (citation omitted).