abuse of discretion standard in Hawaii

2025Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 323 , 844 P.2d 670, 677 (1993) (reviewing a trial court's ruling regarding the admission of evidence, pursuant to HRE 403, under the abuse of discretion standard).

2025Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 323 , 844 P.2d 670, 677 (1993) (reviewing a trial court's ruling regarding the admission of evidence, pursuant to HRE 403, under the abuse of discretion standard).

2025See Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp. of State of Hawai#i., 120 Hawai#i 181, 197, 202 P.3d 1226, 1242 (2009) ("The trial court's grant or denial of attorney's fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (brackets omitted) (quoting Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 104, 176 P.3d 91, 103 (2008))).

2025See Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp. of State of Hawai#i., 120 Hawai#i 181, 197, 202 P.3d 1226, 1242 (2009) ("The trial court's grant or denial of attorney's fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (brackets omitted) (quoting Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 104, 176 P.3d 91, 103 (2008))).

2025Sierra Club v. State Dep't of Transp., 120 Hawai‘i 181, 197, 202 P.3d 1226, 1242 (2009) ("The trial court's grant or denial of attorney's fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (brackets omitted)).

2025Sierra Club v. State Dep't of Transp., 120 Hawai‘i 181, 197, 202 P.3d 1226, 1242 (2009) ("The trial court's grant or denial of attorney's fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (brackets omitted)).

2023"The trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawai#i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002). [T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion.

2023Ltd. v. Lawrence, 77 Hawai‘i 2, 17, 991 P.2d 489 , 504 (1994)). 25 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** The appellate court reviews a “trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration . . . under the abuse of discretion standard.” Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua, 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002).

2025"We review the [circuit] court's decision to pass a juror for cause under the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Richie, 88 Hawaiʻi 19, 35, 960 P.2d 1227, 1243 (1998) (citation omitted). "[W]hen a juror is challenged on grounds that [they have] formed an opinion and cannot be impartial, the test is whether the nature and strength of the opinion are such as in law necessarily raise the presumption of partiality." State v. Iuli, 101 Hawaiʻi 196, 204, 65 P.3d 143, 151 (2003) (cleaned up).

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).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW “Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the family court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant . . . [and its] decision clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason.” In Interest of Doe, 77 Hawaiʻi 109, 115, 883 P.2d 30, 36 (1994) (alterations in original) (quoting Bennett v. Bennett, 8 Haw.

2001“Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the family court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant[, and its] decision clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason.” Doe, 77 Hawai'i at 115 , 883 P.2d at 36 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017Property Division Hawaii’s appellate courts “review the family court’s final division and distribution of the estate of the parties under the abuse of discretion standard, in view of the factors set forth in HRS § 580-47 and partnership principles.” Tougas, 76 Hawai'i at 26 , 868 P.2d at 444 (quoting Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 486 , 836 P.2d 484, 492 (1992)) (footnote omitted), “The family court's determination of whether facts present valid and relevant considerations authorizing a deviation from the partnership model division is a question of law that this court reviews under the right/w

2017Property Division Hawaii’s appellate courts “review the family court’s final division and distribution of the estate of the parties under the abuse of discretion standard, in view of the factors set forth in HRS § 580-47 and partnership principles.” Tougas, 76 Hawai'i at 26 , 868 P.2d at 444 (quoting Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 486 , 836 P.2d 484, 492 (1992)) (footnote omitted), “The family court's determination of whether facts present valid and relevant considerations authorizing a deviation from the partnership model division is a question of law that this court reviews under the right/w

2024Ordinarily, a "trial court's grant or denial of attorneys' fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 105, 176 P.3d 91, 104 (2008) (quoting Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 113 Hawai#i 251, 266, 151 P.3d 732, 747 (2007) (citation omitted)).

2023A "trial court's grant or denial of attorneys' fees and costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 105, 176 P.3d 91, 104 (2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 113 Hawai#i 251, 266, 151 P.3d 732, 747 (2007)).

2008See HRE Rule 403; 2 HRE Rule 404(b); 3 HRE Rule 803(24); 4 State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai'i 229, 246 , 925 P.2d 797, 814 (1996) (“The traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a “judgment call” on the part of the trial court”).

2008See HRE Rule 403; [2] HRE Rule 404(b); [3] HRE Rule 803(24); [4] State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 246, 925 P.2d 797, 814 (1996) ("The traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a "judgment call" on the part of the trial court").

2024"Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or hearing and the adequacy of process usually involve the exercise of discretion, and thus warrant review under the abuse of discretion standard on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 252, 990 P.2 713, 722 (1999).

2024"Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or hearing and the adequacy of process usually involve the exercise of discretion, and thus warrant review under the abuse of discretion standard on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 252, 990 P.2d 713, 722 (1999).

2021"Appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is under the abuse of discretion standard." Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai#i 214, 245, 948 P.2d 1055, 1086 (1997) (quoting Aga v. Hundahl, 78 Hawai#i 230, 245, 891 P.2d 1022, 1037 (1995)).

2001D.Imposition Of Sanctions For Discovery And Litigation Related Abuses “This court reviews the circuit court’s imposition of sanctions for discovery abuse ... under the abuse of discretion standard.” Stender v. Vincent, 92 Hawai'i 355, 362 , 992 P.2d 50, 57 (2000) (citing Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai'i 214, 241 , 948 P.2d 1055, 1082 (1997)).

2001Attorneys ’ Fees And Costs “This court ‘review[s] the ... denial and granting of attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawai'i 21, 27 , 946 P.2d 1317, 1323 (1997) (quoting Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai'i 40, 52-53 , 890 P.2d 277, 289-90 , reconsideration denied, 78 Hawai'i 421 , 895 P.2d 172 (1995)).

2001Attorneys ’ Fees And Costs “This court ‘review[s] the ... denial and granting of attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawai'i 21, 27 , 946 P.2d 1317, 1323 (1997) (quoting Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai'i 40, 52-53 , 890 P.2d 277, 289-90 , reconsideration denied, 78 Hawai'i 421 , 895 P.2d 172 (1995)).

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)).

2015In regards to the abuse of discretion standard of review, this court has held that “[ajgeney determinations, even if made within the agency’s sphere of expertise, are not presumptively valid; however, an agency’s discretionary determinations are entitled to deference, and an appellant has a high burden to surmount that deference[.]” Id. at 419 , 91 P.3d at 501 .

2015In regards to the abuse of discretion standard of review, this court has held that “[ajgeney determinations, even if made within the agency’s sphere of expertise, are not presumptively valid; however, an agency’s discretionary determinations are entitled to deference, and an appellant has a high burden to surmount that deference[.]” Id. at 419 , 91 P.3d at 501 .

2021"We review a trial court's ruling limiting the scope of discovery under the abuse of discretion standard." Fisher v. Grove Farm Co., 123 Hawai#i 82, 94, 230 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER P.3d 382, 394 (App. 2009) (citing State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai#i 462, 477-78, 946 P.2d 32, 47-48 (1997)) (reviewing a motion to compel discovery).

2016Motion to Conduct Further Discovery and Trial “We review a trial court’s ruling limiting the scope of discovery under the abuse of discretion standard.” Fisher v. Grove Farm Co., 123 Hawai'i 82, 94 , 230 P.3d 382, 394 (App.2009) (reviewing a motion to compel discovery) (citing State v. Fukusaku, 86 Hawai'i 462, 477-78 , 946 P.2d 32, 47-48 (1997)).

2023See Brutsch, 139 Hawaiʻi at 381, 390 P.3d at 1268 (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review). (b) First Hawaiian Bank Account Husband's final point of error asserts that Wife "drained the [FHB] accounts nine days after separation," and that he "is entitled to a fifty percent credit for the monies she did not share." "It is fundamental to recognize that marital waste is only a chargeable deduction if it occurs during the divorce[.]" Gordon v. Gordon, 135 Hawai‘i 340, 354, 350 P.3d 1008, 1022 (2015).

2022"We review the family court's final division and distribution of the estate of the parties under the abuse of discretion standard, in view of the factors set forth in HRS § 580-47 and partnership principles." Gordon, 135 Hawai#i at 348, 350 P.3d at 1016 (citations omitted).

2022Salem's original [request for service] did exist, were maintained by the County of Maui and were not produced pursuant to HRS Chapter 92F . . . ." Relatedly, Salem asserts that the Circuit Court "failed to address or take into account the communications written by the OIP . . . ." "HRCP Rule 59(e) motions for reconsideration are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro, 149 Hawai#i 21, 33, 481 P.3d 28, 40 (2021) (quoting Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 75 Hawai#i 250, 258, 861 P.2d 1, 6 (1993)); see Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawai#i 157, 172, 457 P.3d 796, 811 (2020

1995Lusch v. Foster, 3 Haw.App. 175, 184 , 646 P.2d 969, 975 (1982); see also Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 75 Haw. 250, 251 , 861 P.2d 1, 3 (1993) (motion for reconsideration reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard).

2012Motion to disqualify or recuse a judge The Hawaii Supreme Court “has adopted the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing a judge’s denial of a motion for recusal or disqualification.” State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai'i 181, 188 , 981 P.2d 1127, 1134 (1999) (quoting State v. Ross, 89 Hawai'i 371, 376 , 974 P.2d 11, 16 (1998)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2012Motion to disqualify or recuse a judge The Hawaii Supreme Court “has adopted the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing a judge’s denial of a motion for recusal or disqualification.” State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai'i 181, 188 , 981 P.2d 1127, 1134 (1999) (quoting State v. Ross, 89 Hawai'i 371, 376 , 974 P.2d 11, 16 (1998)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2008Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawai`i 21, 27, 946 P.2d 1317, 1323 (1997) (citation omitted); Coll v. McCarthy, 72 Haw. 20, 28 , 804 P.2d 881, 887 (1991).

2008Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawai`i 21, 27, 946 P.2d 1317, 1323 (1997) (citation omitted); Coll v. McCarthy, 72 Haw. 20, 28 , 804 P.2d 881, 887 (1991).

2018Ctr., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292 , 300, 972 P.2d 295 , 303 (1999) ("All aspects of a HRCP Rule 11 determination should be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (quoting Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471 , 473, 887 P.2d 1029 , 1031 (1995) ) ); Marsh Aviation Co. v. Hardy Aviation Ins.

2018Ctr., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292 , 300, 972 P.2d 295 , 303 (1999) ("All aspects of a HRCP Rule 11 determination should be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (quoting Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471 , 473, 887 P.2d 1029 , 1031 (1995) ) ); Marsh Aviation Co. v. Hardy Aviation Ins.

2010Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Hawaii, Ltd., 100 Hawai'i 149, 158 , 58 P.3d 1196, 1205 (2002) (stating that “this court reviews the [court’s] denial of a motion to amend a complaint under the abuse of discretion standard”).

2010Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Hawaii, Ltd., 100 Hawai'i 149, 158 , 58 P.3d 1196, 1205 (2002) (stating that “this court reviews the [court’s] denial of a motion to amend a complaint under the abuse of discretion standard”).

2025Co. v. Kozma, 140 Hawaiʻi 494, 497, 403 P.3d 271, 274 (2017) (citing Oahu Publ’ns, Inc. v. Abercrombie, 134 Hawaiʻi 16, 22, 332 P.3d 159, 165 (2014)).

2022See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Kozma, 140 Hawai#i 494, 497-98, 403 P.3d 271, 274-75 (2017); Oahu Publications, 134 Hawai#i at 22, 332 P.3d at 165 .

2020“Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the family court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant[, and its] decision clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alterations in original).

2018"Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the family court's decision will not be disturbed unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant[, and its] decision clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason." In Interest of Doe , 84 Hawai'i at 46 , 928 P.2d at 888 (alterations in original).

1998The trial court refused to allow a challenge for cause because, as long as spouses can follow the jury instructions, “it’s just like any body else.” “A fair trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed to the criminally accused by both the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 14 of the Hawaii Constitution.” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 523 , 928 P.2d 1, 17 (1996) (quoting State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383, 393 , 894 P.2d 80, 90 (1995)). ‘We review the trial court’s decision to pass a juror for cause under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai

1998The trial court refused to allow a challenge for cause because, as long as spouses can follow the jury instructions, “it’s just like any body else.” “A fair trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed to the criminally accused by both the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 14 of the Hawaii Constitution.” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 523 , 928 P.2d 1, 17 (1996) (quoting State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383, 393 , 894 P.2d 80, 90 (1995)). ‘We review the trial court’s decision to pass a juror for cause under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai

2009See State v. West, 95 Hawai'i 452, 456-57 , 24 P.3d 648, 652-53 (2001) (stating "the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a `judgment call' on the part of the trial court").

2009See State v. West, 95 Hawai'i 452, 456-57 , 24 P.3d 648, 652-53 (2001) (stating "the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a `judgment call' on the part of the trial court").

2018Ctr., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292 , 300, 972 P.2d 295 , 303 (1999) ("All aspects of a HRCP Rule 11 determination should be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (quoting Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471 , 473, 887 P.2d 1029 , 1031 (1995) ) ); Marsh Aviation Co. v. Hardy Aviation Ins.

2018Ctr., Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292 , 300, 972 P.2d 295 , 303 (1999) ("All aspects of a HRCP Rule 11 determination should be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." (quoting Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471 , 473, 887 P.2d 1029 , 1031 (1995) ) ); Marsh Aviation Co. v. Hardy Aviation Ins.