10 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pele Defense Fund v. Patygreen2 sentences2008Thus the plaintiffs’ requested relief—i.e., an injunction—is not “tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law.” Id. at 609-10 , 837 P.2d at 1266 (internal quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis omitted). 2008Thus the plaintiffs’ requested relief—i.e., an injunction—is not “tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law.” Id. at 609-10 , 837 P.2d at 1266 (internal quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis omitted). | 7 | 8 |
Kahoohanohano v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Absent a “clear relinquishment” of immunity and consent to be sued, “the sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages. . . . [U]nder our sovereign immunity doctrine, ‘the crucial inquiry . . . is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is “tantamount to an award of damages” or would merely have an “ancillary” effect on the state treasury.’” Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 336, 162 P.3d 696 , 730 (2007) (quoting Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawaiʻi 474, 481, 482 n.9, 918 P.2d 1130, 1137 , 1138 n.9 (1996)) (emphasis in original omitted). 2025Absent a “clear relinquishment” of immunity and consent to be sued, “the sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages. . . . [U]nder our sovereign immunity doctrine, ‘the crucial inquiry . . . is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is “tantamount to an award of damages” or would merely have an “ancillary” effect on the state treasury.’” Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 336, 162 P.3d 696, 730 (2007) (quoting Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawaiʻi 474, 481, 482 n.9, 918 P.2d 1130, 1137, 1138 n.9 (1996)) (emphasis in original omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Bush v. Watsongreen2 sentences2025Absent a “clear relinquishment” of immunity and consent to be sued, “the sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages. . . . [U]nder our sovereign immunity doctrine, ‘the crucial inquiry . . . is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is “tantamount to an award of damages” or would merely have an “ancillary” effect on the state treasury.’” Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 336, 162 P.3d 696, 730 (2007) (quoting Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawaiʻi 474, 481, 482 n.9, 918 P.2d 1130, 1137, 1138 n.9 (1996)) (emphasis in original omitted). 2025Absent a “clear relinquishment” of immunity and consent to be sued, “the sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages. . . . [U]nder our sovereign immunity doctrine, ‘the crucial inquiry . . . is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is “tantamount to an award of damages” or would merely have an “ancillary” effect on the state treasury.’” Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 336, 162 P.3d 696 , 730 (2007) (quoting Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawaiʻi 474, 481, 482 n.9, 918 P.2d 1130, 1137 , 1138 n.9 (1996)) (emphasis in original omitted). | 1 | 5 |
Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation of the Stategreen2 sentences2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); 2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); | 1 | 2 |
Fought & Co. v. Steel Engineering & Erection, Inc.green2 sentences2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); 2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); | 1 | 1 |
Taomae v. Linglegreen2 sentences2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); 2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Papasan v. Allain
green
2 sentences2007Instead, we concluded that under our sovereign immunity doctrine, “the crucial inquiry ... is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is ‘tantamount to an award of damages’ or ivould merely have an ‘ancilla'ry’ effect on the state treasury.” Id. (quoting Paty, 73 Haw. at 609-10 , 837 P.2d at 1266 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 , 106 S.Ct. 2932 , 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986))) (emphasis added). 2007Instead, we concluded that under our sovereign immunity doctrine, “the crucial inquiry ... is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law is ‘tantamount to an award of damages’ or ivould merely have an ‘ancilla'ry’ effect on the state treasury.” Id. (quoting Paty, 73 Haw. at 609-10 , 837 P.2d at 1266 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 , 106 S.Ct. 2932 , 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986))) (emphasis added). | 4 | 1996–2007 |
Ex Parte Young
green
2 sentences2013This court has adopted a rule that was derived from Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), which distinguishes the impact of sovereign immunity on actions seeking prospective relief (i.e., injunctions) from its impact on actions seeking retrospective relief (i.e., “relief that is ‘tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of lav/ ”). 2013This court has adopted a rule that was derived from Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), which distinguishes the impact of sovereign immunity on actions seeking prospective relief (i.e., injunctions) from its impact on actions seeking retrospective relief (i.e., “relief that is ‘tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of lav/ ”). | 3 | 2007–2013 |
Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
green
2 sentences2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); 2025In Superferry II, we explained that awards of attorneys’ fees against the State are subject to the sovereign immunity doctrine: “‘an award of costs and fees to a prevailing 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI᷾I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** party is inherently in the nature of a damage award.’ Accordingly, to properly award attorney’s fees and costs against [the State] in this case, there must be ‘a clear relinquishment’ of the State’s immunity.” 120 Hawaiʻi at 226, 202 P.3d at 1271 (first quoting Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawaiʻi 37, 51, 951 P.2d 487, 501 (1998); | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kaho'ohanohano v. State
green
1 sentence2008Accordingly, in this case, as in Kaho'ohanohano, “the relevant inquiry is whether the relief sought for a past violation of law[, i.e., the transfer of property,] is ‘tantamount to an award of damages’ or would merely have an ‘ancillary’ effect on the state treasury.” Kaho'ohanohano, 114 Hawaii at 337 , 162 P.3d at 731 (some internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Edelman v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2005Relatedly, in its second argument, the ERS Board maintains that the courts cannot waive the State's sovereign immunity because, (1) pursuant to Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys., 106 Hawai`i 416, 106 P.3d 339 (2005), the legislature must expressly waive immunity, (2) pursuant to Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1992), "relief that is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even though styled as something else, is barred by sovereign immunity[,]" and (3) pursuant to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 134 2005Relatedly, in its second argument, the ERS Board maintains that the courts cannot waive the State's sovereign immunity because, (1) pursuant to Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys., 106 Hawai`i 416, 106 P.3d 339 (2005), the legislature must expressly waive immunity, (2) pursuant to Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1992), "relief that is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even though styled as something else, is barred by sovereign immunity[,]" and (3) pursuant to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 134 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chun v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2005Relatedly, in its second argument, the ERS Board maintains that the courts cannot waive the State's sovereign immunity because, (1) pursuant to Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys., 106 Hawai`i 416, 106 P.3d 339 (2005), the legislature must expressly waive immunity, (2) pursuant to Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1992), "relief that is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even though styled as something else, is barred by sovereign immunity[,]" and (3) pursuant to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 134 2005Relatedly, in its second argument, the ERS Board maintains that the courts cannot waive the State’s sovereign immunity because, (1) pursuant to Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement Sys., 106 Hawai'i 416, 106 P.3d 339 (2005), the legislature must expressly waive immunity, (2) pursuant to Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1992), “relief that is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even though styled as something else, is barred by sovereign immunity!,]” and (3) pursuant to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 134 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wong v. City and County of Honolulu
green
2 sentences1996Wong v. City & County of Honolulu, 66 Haw. 389 , 665 P.2d 157 (1983). 1996Wong v. City & County of Honolulu, 66 Haw. 389 , 665 P.2d 157 (1983). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.