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 |
|---|---|---|
Masaki v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2023Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15 , 780 P.2d 566, 574 (1989) (noting that "'clear and convincing' evidence may be defined as an intermediate standard 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases"). 2023Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15 , 780 P.2d 566, 574 (1989) (noting that "'clear and convincing' evidence may be defined as an intermediate standard 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases"). | 4 | 6 |
Uyeda v. Schermer.green2 sentences2025If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that harassment as defined in . . . paragraph (2) of that definition exists, it shall enjoin for no more than three years further harassment of the petitioner[.] (Emphasis added and formatting altered.) Clear and convincing evidence is "an intermediate standard of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER reasonable doubt required in criminal cases." Uyeda v. Schermer, 144 Hawai‘i 163, 174, 439 P.3d 115, 126 (2019) (citation omitted). 2020(Emphasis added.) "The clear and convincing evidence standard is an intermediate standard of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases." Uyeda v. Schermer, 144 Hawai#i 163, 174, 439 P.3d 115, 126 (2019) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Iddings v. Mee-Leegreen2 sentences1999See also Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai'i 1, 13, 919 P.2d 263, 275 (1996) (“‘[C]lear and convincing’ evidence may be defined as an intermediate standard of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases. 1999See also Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai'i 1, 13, 919 P.2d 263, 275 (1996) (“‘[C]lear and convincing’ evidence may be defined as an intermediate standard of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases. | 2 | 2 |
Welton v. Gallaghergreen1 sentence2006Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15 , 780 P.2d 566, 574-75 (1989) (citing Welton v. Gallagher, 2 Haw.App. 242, 245-46 , 630 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1981); Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson, 519 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind.1988); E. | 1 | 1 |
Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2006Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15 , 780 P.2d 566, 574-75 (1989) (citing Welton v. Gallagher, 2 Haw.App. 242, 245-46 , 630 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1981); Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson, 519 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind.1988); E. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Benny McKinneygreen2 sentences1996In United States v. McKinney, 919 F.2d 405 (7th Cir.1990), the court held that the proper standard of review was an intermediate standard of review: whether the magistrate had a “substantial basis” for finding that probable cause existed. 1996Id. at 412 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Welton v. Gallagher
green
1 sentence2006Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15 , 780 P.2d 566, 574-75 (1989) (citing Welton v. Gallagher, 2 Haw.App. 242, 245-46 , 630 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1981); Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson, 519 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind.1988); E. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Charles J. Spears, Also Known as \Blackie
green
1 sentence1996This decision was later overruled in United States v. Spears, 965 F.2d 262 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 989 , 113 S.Ct. 502 , 121 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992), where the ’court held that clear error was the appropriate standard to review probable cause to conduct both warrant and war-rantless searches. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Spears v. United States
green
1 sentence1996This decision was later overruled in United States v. Spears, 965 F.2d 262 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 989 , 113 S.Ct. 502 , 121 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992), where the ’court held that clear error was the appropriate standard to review probable cause to conduct both warrant and war-rantless searches. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Freeman v. Davis
green
1 sentence1996This decision was later overruled in United States v. Spears, 965 F.2d 262 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 989 , 113 S.Ct. 502 , 121 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992), where the ’court held that clear error was the appropriate standard to review probable cause to conduct both warrant and war-rantless searches. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.