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 1972–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Antonegreen2 sentences2020State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 349 , 615 P.2d 101, 105 (1980). 2020State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 349 , 615 P.2d 101, 105 (1980). | 1 | 2 |
Sentinel Insurance Co. v. First Insurance Co. of Hawai'i, Ltd.green2 sentences2000Co., 76 Hawai'i at 295, 875 P.2d at 912 , this court “rejected” the rule that “an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend results in an irrebuttable presumption that the insurer is obligated to indemnify its insured”). 2000Co., 76 Hawai'i at 295, 875 P.2d at 912 , this court “rejected” the rule that “an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend results in an irrebuttable presumption that the insurer is obligated to indemnify its insured”). | 1 | 2 |
Solberg v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2023Servs., 583 F. Supp. 1095, 1097 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Anderson Bowen, Jr.green1 sentence2023See, e.g., United States v. Bowen, 414 F.2d 1268, 1273 (3d Cir. 1969) (holding the presumption that conscientious objector form mailed to draft inductee was received violates Fifth Amendment due process clause "insofar as it purports to establish such an irrebuttable presumption"); Solberg v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. | 1 | 1 |
Linda D. v. Fritz C.green2 sentences1987We note in passing that the UPA does not “create an irrebuttable presumption of co-equal supportf.]” Linda D. v. Fritz C., 38 Wash. App. 288, 300 , 687 P.2d 223, 229 (1984). 1987We note in passing that the UPA does not “create an irrebuttable presumption of co-equal supportf.]” Linda D. v. Fritz C., 38 Wash. App. 288, 300 , 687 P.2d 223, 229 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Vlandis v. Klinegreen1 sentence1982As the presumption that he would not appear at trial was not “necessarily or universally true in fact,” and because the state had a “reasonable alternative means of making the crucial determination” of the likelihood of defendant’s appearance through a fair hearing, id. at 59-60 (quoting Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, at 446 (1973)), the court held that the provision swept too broadly in violation of the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause. | 1 | 1 |
Carrington v. Rashgreen2 sentences1972See Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 96 , 85 S.Ct. 775 , 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965). 1972See Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 96 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Escandar v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence1982As the presumption that he would not appear at trial was not “necessarily or universally true in fact,” and because the state had a “reasonable alternative means of making the crucial determination” of the likelihood of defendant’s appearance through a fair hearing, id. at 59-60 (quoting Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, at 446 (1973)), the court held that the provision swept too broadly in violation of the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
green
1 sentence1981Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, supra; Stanley v. Illinois, supra. In all other cases, the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Weinberger v. Salfi
green
1 sentence1981Weinberger v. Salfi, supra. *401 For example, in Stanley v. Illinois, the Supreme Court rigorously scrutinized an irrebuttable presumption which infringed upon a fundamental right. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
1 sentence1981Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, supra; Stanley v. Illinois, supra. In all other cases, the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Nagle v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences1981This court stated in Nagle, 63 Haw. at 404 , 629 P.2d at 118-19 , that in cases involving neither suspect classifications nor fundamen *508 tal rights, we will uphold the constitutionality of a statutory presumption if it has a rational basis. 1981This court stated in Nagle, 63 Haw. at 404 , 629 P.2d at 118-19 , that in cases involving neither suspect classifications nor fundamen *508 tal rights, we will uphold the constitutionality of a statutory presumption if it has a rational basis. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.