case-by-case analysis in Hawaii

2019In Cieri , we held "as a matter of law that a broker or salesperson actively involved in a real estate transaction invariably engages in 'conduct in any trade or commerce,' " making it "unnecessary to engage in a case-by-case analysis" to determine whether the transaction occurred in the business context. 80 Hawai'i at 65 , 905 P.2d at 40 .

2019In Cieri , we held "as a matter of law that a broker or salesperson actively involved in a real estate transaction invariably engages in 'conduct in any trade or commerce,' " making it "unnecessary to engage in a case-by-case analysis" to determine whether the transaction occurred in the business context. 80 Hawai'i at 65 , 905 P.2d at 40 .

2020In United States v. Graham, for example, the Sixth Circuit considered the particular facts of the case and concluded that the prosecution’s constitutional 24 The court in Smukler determined that the analysis for whether documents in the possession of other government agencies or individuals involved in the prosecution of a defendant were in the possession of the prosecution under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was applicable to the prosecution’s possession of documents for purposes of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 16.

2017Kender, 60 Haw. at 304 , 588 P.2d at 449-50 (agreeing with the California Supreme Court that whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a certain place will depend upon “[a] number of factors” that will “arise on a case by case basis”); State v. Ward, 62 Haw. 509, 515 , 617 P.2d 571 -72 (1980) (holding that the reasonable expectation of privacy test requires courts to consider “all factors on a case-by-case basis”).

2014Our decision in State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai'i 206 , 297 P.3d 1062 (2013) is not inconsistent with this position.

2014Our decision in State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai'i 206 , 297 P.3d 1062 (2013) is not inconsistent with this position.

2014The court in Sawyer overruled this blanket rule and held that "justice demands a case-by-case analysis.” 88 Hawai'i at 333-34 , 966 P.2d at 645-46 . .

2014The court in Sawyer overruled this blanket rule and held that “justice demands a case-by-case analysis.” 88 Hawai#i at 333-34, 966 P.2d at 645-46 . -59- *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** anger which in turn may be of sufficient magnitude to constitute the ‘extreme mental or emotional disturbance’ which would reduce murder to manslaughter.” Warner, 58 Haw. at 498-99 , 573 P.2d at 963 (footnote omitted).

2005Even as the Third Circuit reaffirmed the case-by-case rule in Bergman v. City of Atlantic City, 860 F.2d 560 (3d Cir.1988), it observed that “[n]o well-counseled plaintiff in th[e] circuits [that categorically permit separate appeals] would ever join separate claims in a single complaint; he should instead file a separate complaint for each claim and then have them consolidated.” Id. at 565 n. 9.

2005Even as the Third Circuit reaffirmed the case-by-case rule in Bergman v. City of Atlantic City, 860 F.2d 560 (3d Cir.1988), it observed that “[n]o well-counseled plaintiff in th[e] circuits [that categorically permit separate appeals] would ever join separate claims in a single complaint; he should instead file a separate complaint for each claim and then have them consolidated.” Id. at 565 n. 9.

2004The Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 , 122 S.Ct. 681 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), explained that the ADA "defines `disability' `with respect to an individual'" and "`makes clear' that `Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in ... a case-by-case manner.'" Id. at 198 , 122 S.Ct. 681 (quoting Sutton, 527 U.S. at 473 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 ).

2004The Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 , 122 S.Ct. 681 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), explained that the ADA "defines `disability' `with respect to an individual'" and "`makes clear' that `Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in ... a case-by-case manner.'" Id. at 198 , 122 S.Ct. 681 (quoting Sutton, 527 U.S. at 473 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 ).

2004Appx. 552 , 2001 WL 884708 (9th Cir.2001), the federal district court said that a determination of whether a disability substantially limits one or more major life activities requires a case-by-case analysis "looking at the effect the impairment has on the life of the individual." The United States Supreme Court has declared that "whether a person has a disability under the ADA is an individualized inquiry. " Sutton, 527 U.S. at 473 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 (emphasis in original).

2004Appx. 552 , 2001 WL 884708 (9th Cir.2001), the federal district court said that a determination of whether a disability substantially limits one or more major life activities requires a case-by-case analysis "looking at the effect the impairment has on the life of the individual." The United States Supreme Court has declared that "whether a person has a disability under the ADA is an individualized inquiry. " Sutton, 527 U.S. at 473 , 119 S.Ct. 2139 (emphasis in original).

1999The proper approach, therefore, is not the inflexible rule adopted by the majority, demanding "clear, accurate warnings as required by statute," see Majority at 53, 987 P.2d 276 , but a case-by-case analysis guided by fundamental notions of fairness and due process. [5] Along these lines, the United States Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), is particularly instructive.

1999The proper approach, therefore, is not the inflexible rule adopted by the majority, demanding "clear, accurate warnings as required by statute," see Majority at 53, 987 P.2d 276 , but a case-by-case analysis guided by fundamental notions of fairness and due process. [5] Along these lines, the United States Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), is particularly instructive.

1994Id. at 664-68 , 619 A.2d at 130-32 .

1994Id. at 664-68 , 619 A.2d at 130-32 .