Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gold v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2025Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2013); see, e.g., 5 A plaintiff must establish the following four elements in order to sustain a defamation claim: (1) "a false and defamatory statement concerning another"; (2) "an unprivileged publication to a third party"; (3) "fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher [and] actual malice where the plaintiff is a public figure"; and (4) "either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication." Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai‘i 94, 100, 962 P.2d 353, 359 (1998) (brackets and citation 2018Id. at 12 , 919 P.2d at 274 . 6 HRS § 386-3 (Supp. 1998) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added): (a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter. 7 The tort of false light substantially overlaps with defamation, and "where a false-light claim is based on the same statements as a defamation cl | 2 | 4 |
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2010Gold, 88 Hawai`i at 103, 962 P.2d at 362 ; McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. Rptr. 702, 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). 2009Gold, 88 Hawai'i at 103 , 962 P.2d at 362 (concluding that because plaintiffs’ defamation claim had failed, their false-lighf/invasion of privacy claim must also fail, as it was a “derivative claim[] based on the [plaintiffs’ claim that [the defendant’s statement] was defamatory”); McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.3d 961 , 234 Cal.Rptr. 702, 704 (1987) (“When an action for libel is alleged, a false-light claim based on the same facts ... is superfluous and should be dismissed.”). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Freitasgreen2 sentences2018Id. at 12 , 919 P.2d at 274 . 6 HRS § 386-3 (Supp. 1998) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added): (a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter. 7 The tort of false light substantially overlaps with defamation, and "where a false-light claim is based on the same statements as a defamation cl 2018Id. at 12 , 919 P.2d at 274 . 6 HRS § 386-3 (Supp. 1998) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added): (a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter. 7 The tort of false light substantially overlaps with defamation, and "where a false-light claim is based on the same statements as a defamation cl | 1 | 2 |
Partington v. Bugliosigreen2 sentences2025"In reviewing a defamation claim, a court must ask as a threshold matter whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." Partington, 56 F.3d at 1153 (internal quotation marks and brackets and citation omitted); Wilson, 121 Hawaiʻi at 128, 214 P.3d at 1118 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025"If the answer is no, the claim is foreclosed by the First Amendment." Partington, 56 F.3d at 1153 . 26. | 1 | 1 |
Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon.green1 sentence2025See Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon, 151 Hawaiʻi 136, 146, 509 P.3d 1099, 1109 (2022) 8 The Circuit Court cited Williams in COL 21. 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (affirming summary judgment on different grounds than the trial court). | 1 | 1 |
Basilius v. Honolulu Pub. Co., Ltd.green1 sentence2010Basilius v. Honolulu Publishing Co., 711 F. Supp. 548, 552 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Grillo v. John Alden Life Insurancegreen1 sentence2009Co., 939 F.Supp. 685, 688 (D.Minn.1996) (concluding that statements describing the plaintiff as "short and stupid” could not support a defamation claim because they were not susceptible of empirical determination and could not be proved true or false). | 1 | 1 |
Beamer v. Nishikigreen2 sentences2006In contrast to this court's holding in Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 578-79 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1271 (1983), in order for a defamation claim to be exempt from preemption, a plaintiff is required to show malice on the part of the party attributed with the defamatory statement, without regard to the plaintiffs status as a public figure. 20 . 2006In contrast to this court's holding in Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 578-79 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1271 (1983), in order for a defamation claim to be exempt from preemption, a plaintiff is required to show malice on the part of the party attributed with the defamatory statement, without regard to the plaintiffs status as a public figure. 20 . | 1 | 1 |
Layne v. Builders Plumbing Supply Co.green2 sentences2002First, allowing a defamation claim in such context would interfere with employers', employees', and the public's interest in "open communication about job-related problems." Id. (quoting Layne, 155 Ill.Dec. 493 , 569 N.E.2d at 1111 (citation omitted)). "[T]he potential for defamation liability every time an employee is terminated would chill communications in the work place, preventing employers from disclosing reasons for their business decisions, and would negatively affect grievance procedures intended to benefit the discharged employee." Id. 2002First, allowing a defamation claim in such context would interfere with employers', employees', and the public's interest in "open communication about job-related problems." Id. (quoting Layne, 155 Ill.Dec. 493 , 569 N.E.2d at 1111 (citation omitted)). "[T]he potential for defamation liability every time an employee is terminated would chill communications in the work place, preventing employers from disclosing reasons for their business decisions, and would negatively affect grievance procedures intended to benefit the discharged employee." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.green1 sentence1999We conclude that neither Gerten nor Richie demonstrated that there is a material question of fact as to whether either of them suffered sufficient harm to their respective reputations to support a defamation claim. 544 N.W.2d at 26-27 (brackets and asterisks in original). | 1 | 1 |
First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeksgreen2 sentences1996First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 396 , 772 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1989) (citing Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, section 2711, at 565-56 (1983)). 1996First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 396 , 772 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1989) (citing Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, section 2711, at 565-56 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025There, the court concluded that California had the most significant relationship to the parties and the subject matter, because the plaintiff's "purported damages would most likely occur in California where he resides and conducts his business[,]" the defendant's allegedly defamatory Facebook post stated that "the purported rape took place in California," and the plaintiff had presented "no evidence that the circulation of 6/ Like Hawai#i, Massachusetts enacted an anti-SLAPP statute that applies to claims involving a person's exercise of their right to petition (or participate in) the governme | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nakamoto v. Kawauchi.
green
1 sentence2022Nakamoto v. Kawauchi, 142 Hawai#i 259, 270 n.7 418 P.3d 600 , 611 n.7 (2018) (citing Wilson v. 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Freitas; 121 Hawai#i 120, 130, 214 P.3d 1110, 1120 (App. 2009)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Iddings v. Mee-Lee
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 12 , 919 P.2d at 274 . 6 HRS § 386-3 (Supp. 1998) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added): (a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter. 7 The tort of false light substantially overlaps with defamation, and "where a false-light claim is based on the same statements as a defamation cl 2018Id. at 12 , 919 P.2d at 274 . 6 HRS § 386-3 (Supp. 1998) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added): (a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter. 7 The tort of false light substantially overlaps with defamation, and "where a false-light claim is based on the same statements as a defamation cl | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114
green
2 sentences2006The United States Supreme Court in Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Local 114, 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966), noted that the complaint in that case failed to allege these requirements. 2006The United States Supreme Court in Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Local 114, 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966), noted that the complaint in that case failed to allege these requirements. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sullivan v. Baptist Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2002First, allowing a defamation claim in such context would interfere with employers’, employees’, and the public’s interest in “open communication about job-related problems.” Id. (quoting Layne, 155 Ill.Dec. 493 , 569 N.E.2d at 1111 (citation omitted)). “[T]he potential for defamation liability every time an employee is terminated would chill communications in the work place, preventing employers from disclosing reasons for them business decisions, and would negatively affect grievance procedures intended to benefit the discharged employee.” Id. 2002First, allowing a defamation claim in such context would interfere with employers', employees', and the public's interest in "open communication about job-related problems." Id. (quoting Layne, 155 Ill.Dec. 493 , 569 N.E.2d at 1111 (citation omitted)). "[T]he potential for defamation liability every time an employee is terminated would chill communications in the work place, preventing employers from disclosing reasons for their business decisions, and would negatively affect grievance procedures intended to benefit the discharged employee." Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Salomone v. MacMillan Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence1999In Salomone v. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 77 A.D.2d 501 , 429 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y.App.Div.1980), a New York appellate court reversed a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which asserted the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff had suffered actual damage, reasoning as follows: Plaintiff pleads no special damage. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Wagner v. NFS Financial Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999In Salomone v. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 77 A.D.2d 501 , 429 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y.App.Div.1980), a New York appellate court reversed a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which asserted the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff had suffered actual damage, reasoning as follows: Plaintiff pleads no special damage. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.