balancing of several factors in Hawaii

2003Similarly, the constitutional right of due process vras adequately protected through the contested ease hearing process and the subsequent votes by the Board. 23 In Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 378 , 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989), this court explained that: Determination of the specific procedures required to satisfy due process requires a balancing of several factors: (1) the private interest which will be affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures actually used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or alternative p

2003Similarly, the constitutional right of due process vras adequately protected through the contested ease hearing process and the subsequent votes by the Board. 23 In Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 378 , 773 P.2d 250, 261 (1989), this court explained that: Determination of the specific procedures required to satisfy due process requires a balancing of several factors: (1) the private interest which will be affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures actually used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or alternative p

2001Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 33 ; Silver v. Castle Memorial Hosp., 53 Haw. [475,] 484, 497 P.2d [564,] 571 [(1972)].

2001Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 33 ; Silver v. Castle Memorial Hosp., 53 Haw. [475,] 484, 497 P.2d [564,] 571 [(1972)].

2001Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54 , 795 P.2d 42, 50 , clarified by, 247 Kan. 699 , 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas); Donahue v. *255 Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a “modified” balancing test).

2001Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54 , 795 P.2d 42, 50 , clarified by, 247 Kan. 699 , 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas); Donahue v. *255 Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a “modified” balancing test).

2001In Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d 685 (1961), cert. de nied, 368 U.S. 987 , 82 S.Ct. 603 , 7 L.Ed.2d 525 (1962), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a legal malpractice action against an attorney by his client’s trust beneficiaries could be maintained for negligently drafting a “pour-over will.” 6 In its analysis, the Lucas court stated that whether a particular defendant can be liable to a thud person not in privity is a matter of public policy, requiring the balancing of several factors: (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the

2001In Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d 685 (1961), cert. de nied, 368 U.S. 987 , 82 S.Ct. 603 , 7 L.Ed.2d 525 (1962), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a legal malpractice action against an attorney by his client’s trust beneficiaries could be maintained for negligently drafting a “pour-over will.” 6 In its analysis, the Lucas court stated that whether a particular defendant can be liable to a thud person not in privity is a matter of public policy, requiring the balancing of several factors: (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the

2001Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54 , 795 P.2d 42, 50 , clarified by, 247 Kan. 699 , 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas); Donahue v. *255 Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a “modified” balancing test).

2001Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54 , 795 P.2d 42, 50 , clarified by, 247 Kan. 699 , 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas); Donahue v. *255 Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a “modified” balancing test).

2001Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54 , 795 P.2d 42, 50 , clarified by, 247 Kan. 699 , 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas); Donahue v. *255 Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a “modified” balancing test).