77 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 9 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. Navasgreen2 sentences2016STANDARD OF REVIEW An appellate court reviews “ ‘the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant’ under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai'i 13, 18 , 72 P.3d 486 , 490 (2003) (quoting State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996)). 2016STANDARD OF REVIEW An appellate court reviews “ ‘the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant’ under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai'i 13, 18 , 72 P.3d 486 , 490 (2003) (quoting State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996)). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Hoeygreen2 sentences1999Voluntariness of a Statement to the Police “[W]e apply a de novo standard of appellate review to the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a confession.” State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai'i 17, 32 , 881 P.2d 504, 519 (1994) (internal quotation and brackets omitted). 1999Voluntariness of a Statement to the Police “[W]e apply a de novo standard of appellate review to the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a confession.” State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai'i 17, 32 , 881 P.2d 504, 519 (1994) (internal quotation and brackets omitted). | 8 | 8 |
Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.green2 sentences2013“Under the de novo standard, [the appellate court is to] examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the circuit court’s answer to it.” Hawaii Ventures, LLC, v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai'i 438, 457 , 164 P.3d 696, 715 (2007) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 2013“Under the de novo standard, [the appellate court is to] examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the circuit court’s answer to it.” Hawaii Ventures, LLC, v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai'i 438, 457 , 164 P.3d 696, 715 (2007) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). | 5 | 5 |
Dole Hawaii Division-Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramilgreen2 sentences2012“Where both mixed questions of fact and law are presented, deference will be given to the agency’s expertise and experience in the particular field and the court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.” Dole Hawaii Div.-Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramil, 71 Haw. 419, 424 , 794 P.2d 1115, 1118 (1990). 2012“Where both mixed questions of fact and law are presented, deference will be given to the agency’s expertise and experience in the particular field and the court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.” Dole Hawaii Div.-Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramil, 71 Haw. 419, 424 , 794 P.2d 1115, 1118 (1990). | 5 | 5 |
Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of ERSgreen2 sentences2008Sys., 92 Hawai`i 432, 438-39, 992 P.2d 127, 133-34 (2000)). 2007Sys., 92 Hawai'i 432, 438-39 , 992 P.2d 127, 133-34 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kelekoliogreen2 sentences1999We thus “examine the entire record and make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness based upon that review and the totality of the circumstances surrounding [the defendant’s] statement.” Id. (quoting State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 502 , 849 P.2d 58, 69 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original and emphasis added)). 1999We thus “examine the entire record and make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness based upon that review and the totality of the circumstances surrounding [the defendant’s] statement.” Id. (quoting State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 502 , 849 P.2d 58, 69 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original and emphasis added)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Detroygreen2 sentences2025Standards of Review A. Probable Cause for a Search Warrant We review "the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant under the de novo standard . . . ." 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER State v. Quiday, 138 Hawai#i 124, 127, 377 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai#i 13, 18, 72 P.3d 485, 490 (2003)). 2022An appellate court reviews "'the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant' under the de novo standard of review." State v. Quiday, 138 Hawai#i 124, 127, 377 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2016) (quoting State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai#i 13, 18, 72 P.3d 485, 490 (2003)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Quidaygreen2 sentences2025Standards of Review A. Probable Cause for a Search Warrant We review "the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant under the de novo standard . . . ." 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER State v. Quiday, 138 Hawai#i 124, 127, 377 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai#i 13, 18, 72 P.3d 485, 490 (2003)). 2022An appellate court reviews "'the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant' under the de novo standard of review." State v. Quiday, 138 Hawai#i 124, 127, 377 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2016) (quoting State v. Detroy, 102 Hawai#i 13, 18, 72 P.3d 485, 490 (2003)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kaleohanogreen2 sentences2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “[T]he determination whether probable cause to arrest exists ... is reviewed under a de novo standard on appeal.” State v. Kaleohano, 99 Hawai'i 370, 375 , 56 P.3d 138, 143 (2002) (citing State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996)). 2005STANDARD OF REVIEW “[T]he determination whether probable cause to arrest exists ... is reviewed under a de novo standard on appeal.” State v. Kaleohano, 99 Hawai'i 370, 375 , 56 P.3d 138, 143 (2002) (citing State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996)). | 2 | 2 |
Camara v. Agsaludgreen2 sentences2014The majority instead concluded that the issue under review was more accurately characterized as a mixed question of law and fact regarding “whether the circuit court, erred by narrowly construing the phrase ‘a definite time [and] place’ as used in HRS § 88-79(a) and HAR § 6-22-2 to exclude the ‘repetitive lifting and moving of heavy boxes during the course of [Panado’s eight-hour] shift[.]’” (Citing Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216 , 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984)) (brackets in the original). 2014The majority instead concluded that the issue under review was more accurately characterized as a mixed question of law and fact regarding “whether the circuit court, erred by narrowly construing the phrase ‘a definite time [and] place’ as used in HRS § 88-79(a) and HAR § 6-22-2 to exclude the ‘repetitive lifting and moving of heavy boxes during the course of [Panado’s eight-hour] shift[.]’” (Citing Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216 , 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984)) (brackets in the original). | 2 | 2 |
Koolau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen's Medical Centergreen2 sentences1995Koolau Radiology Inc. v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 73 Haw. 433, 439-40 , 834 P.2d 1294, 1298 (1992) (holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard). 1995Koolau Radiology Inc. v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 73 Haw. 433, 439-40 , 834 P.2d 1294, 1298 (1992) (holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Baker.green2 sentences2025The de novo standard of review applies "to the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a confession." Id. (cleaned up). 2025The de novo standard of review applies "to the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a confession." Id. (cleaned up). | 1 | 2 |
'Ōlelo v. Office of Information Practicesgreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I 2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I | 1 | 2 |
McGrail v. Administrative Director of the Courtsgreen2 sentences2026See Russo, 141 Hawaiʻi at 188, 407 P.3d at 144 (reviewing probable cause determinations under a de novo standard on appeal); McGrail, 130 Hawaiʻi at 78, 305 P.3d at 494. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's November 27, 2024 Revocation Order and the December 2, 2024 Judgment. 2026See Russo, 141 Hawaiʻi at 188, 407 P.3d at 144 (reviewing probable cause determinations under a de novo standard on appeal); McGrail, 130 Hawaiʻi at 78, 305 P.3d at 494 . 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's November 27, 2024 Revocation Order and the December 2, 2024 Judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Bremer v. Weeksgreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I 2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, 126 Hawai‘i 190, 195, 268 P.3d 443, 448 (App. 2011) (explaining a court's ruling under Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(4) is reviewed de novo); Commentary to DCRCP Rule 60 (noting the language in DCRCP Rule 60 and HRCP Rule 60 is identical). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramos-Saundersgreen1 sentence2020State v. Ramos-Saunders, 135 Hawai#i 299, 302, 349 P.3d 406, 409 (App. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Peer News LLC v. City of Honolulu & Dep't of Budget & Fiscal Servs.green1 sentence2020Although the Law Center implies that the palpably erroneous standard is only applicable to an agency’s appeal of OIP decisions,25 the plain language of HRS § 92-12(d) states that “[o]pinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible . . . and shall be considered as precedent unless found to be palpably erroneous.” (Emphasis added.) The Law Center contends that the palpably erroneous standard “makes OIP’s rulings virtually unreviewable.” We disagree. “[O]ur precedents . . . make clear that we are not bound to acquiesce in OIP’s interpretation when it is ‘palpably er | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Esteban.green2 sentences2016See also Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Esteban, 129 Hawai'i 154, 157 , 296 P.3d 1062, 1065 (2013) (applying a de novo standard of review to the question of the applicability of the res judica-ta doctrine). 2016See also Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Esteban, 129 Hawai'i 154, 157 , 296 P.3d 1062, 1065 (2013) (applying a de novo standard of review to the question of the applicability of the res judica-ta doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelekoliogreen1 sentence2016State v. Kelekolio, 94 Hawai’i 354, 356, 14 P.3d 364, 366 (App. 2000) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kauhigreen2 sentences2015Naititi, 104 Hawai'i at 233 , 87 P.3d at 902 ; see State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai'i 195, 197 , 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (“We review the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ”). 2015Naititi, 104 Hawai'i at 233 , 87 P.3d at 902 ; see State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai'i 195, 197 , 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (“We review the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pattersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation of the Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Querubin v. Thronasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ganalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananuigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ontaigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jenkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| SANTA MONICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. City of Santa Monicagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Centinela Hospital Assn. v. City of Inglewoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hanagami v. China Airlines, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Amantiad v. Odumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beneficial Hawai'i, Inc. v. Caseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Guyton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Gray Line Hawai'i, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dairy Road Partners v. Island Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Stolarz v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Geza De Kaplany v. J. J. Enomoto, Director of California Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bumanglag v. Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd.
green
2 sentences2012Administrative conelu- sions of law, however, are reviewed under the de novo standard inasmuch as they are “not binding on an appellate court.” Id. (block format and citation omitted). 2011Administrative conclusions of law, however, are reviewed under the de novo standard inasmuch as they are “not binding on an appellate court.” Id. (block format and citation omitted). | 5 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2000Id. | 2 | 2000–2017 |
Kay v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Applying a de novo standard of review, the ICA concluded that the circuit court erred in *39 granting LPIHGC’s motion to confirm and denying Nordic’s motion to vacate because “[the Arbitrator’s] nondisclosures constitute ‘evident partiality’ requiring vacatur of the Award under HRS § 658A-23(a)(2).” Nordic, mem. op. at 8 (quoting Kay, 119 Hawaii at 224 , 194 P.3d at 1186 ). 2015Applying a de novo standard of review, the ICA concluded that the circuit court erred in granting LPIHGC’s motion to confirm and denying Nordic’s motion to vacate because “[the Arbitrator’s] nondisclosures constitute ‘evident partiality’ 21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** requiring vacatur of the Award under HRS § 658A-23(a)(2).” Nordic, mem. op. at 8 (quoting Kay, 119 Hawai#i at 224, 194 P.3d at 1186 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Valrose Maui, Inc. v. MacLyn Morris, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The ICA relied heavily upon Kay , and Valrose Maui, Inc. v. Maclyn Morris, Inc., 105 F.Supp.2d 1118 (D.Haw.2000) (“VMI”). 2015The ICA relied heavily upon Kay, and Valrose Maui, Inc. v. Maclyn Morris, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka
green
2 sentences2002Keka, 94 Hawai'i at 221 , 11 P.3d at 9 . 2002Keka, 94 Hawai'i at 221 , 11 P.3d at 9 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Price v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I 2025Accordingly, we overrule this aspect of the opinions in the following cases: Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai‘i 43, 63, 85 P.3d 150, 170 (2004) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, and treating unchallenged findings of fact on appeal as binding); Price v. AIG Hawai‘i Insurance Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106, 108 n.3, 110, 111 P.3d 1, 3 n.3, 5 (2005) (reviewing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and citing the correct de novo standard of review, but treating an unchallenged finding of fact on appeal as binding); and ʻŌlelo: The Corporation for Community Television v. Office of I | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Fisher v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Attorney's Fees to McLaren v. Paradise Inn Hawaii, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020This court reasoned that, because LIRAB may review DCD’s award of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion after a de novo hearing pursuant to HRS § 386-87 (1993), DCD was 13 Notably, while the ICA determined that Masui’s application for attorney’s fees did not provide relevant information, LIRAB’s Order did not cite this lack of information as a reason for its reduction of Masui’s requested hourly rate. 35 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** required to “set forth its reasons for reducing an attorney’s fee request for appropriate LIRAB and possible judicia 2020As HRS § 368-88 (2015) provides for judicial review of LIRAB decisions, LIRAB must also provide an explanation “sufficient to enable appropriate review for abuse of discretion” when it amends an attorney’s requested fees. 132 Hawaiʻi at 331-32, 321 P.3d at 682-83 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Naititi
green
2 sentences2015Naititi, 104 Hawai'i at 233 , 87 P.3d at 902 ; see State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai'i 195, 197 , 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (“We review the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ”). 2015Naititi, 104 Hawai'i at 233 , 87 P.3d at 902 ; see State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai'i 195, 197 , 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (“We review the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Paul's Electrical Service, Inc. v. Befitel green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hui Malama Aina O Ko'olau v. Pacarro green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Waikiki Resort Hotel, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Hoshijo Ex Rel. White green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Santobello v. New York green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Freitas v. Administrative Director of the Courts green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Batson green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In Re Kauai Electric Division of Citizens Utilities Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Salve Regina College v. Russell green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In Re the Tax Appeal of Valley of the Temples Corp. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Kearns green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Villeza green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Tyrrell green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Albert v. First National Bank & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Johnson v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Wells green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Kekona green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Ainoa v. Unemployment Compensation Appeals Division green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.