10 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 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. Pittgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Pitt, 77 Hawai'i 374, 380 , 884 P.2d 1150, 1156 (App.1994) (adopting a “case-by-case approach” to determine whether or not to apply the “private firm principle” of HRPC 1.10 to government offices). 2010See State v. Pitt, 77 Hawai'i 374, 380 , 884 P.2d 1150, 1156 (App.1994) (adopting a “case-by-case approach” to determine whether or not to apply the “private firm principle” of HRPC 1.10 to government offices). | 2 | 2 |
Dorrance v. Leegreen1 sentence2024See Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawaiʻi 143, 150, 976 P.2d 904, 911 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knightgreen1 sentence2021For the purposes of this rule, a judgment is final when the time for direct appeal under Rule 4(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure has expired without appeal being taken, or if direct appeal was taken, when the appellate process has terminated, provided that a petition under this rule seeking relief from judgment may be filed during the pendency of direct appeal if leave is granted by order of the appellate court. 16 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER untimely appeals, the "general rule" is that "compliance with the requirement of timely filing of a noti | 1 | 1 |
Grattafiori v. Stategreen2 sentences2021For the purposes of this rule, a judgment is final when the time for direct appeal under Rule 4(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure has expired without appeal being taken, or if direct appeal was taken, when the appellate process has terminated, provided that a petition under this rule seeking relief from judgment may be filed during the pendency of direct appeal if leave is granted by order of the appellate court. 16 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER untimely appeals, the "general rule" is that "compliance with the requirement of timely filing of a noti 2021However, the Hawai#i Supreme Court has expressed that "[w]hile the rule in isolation appears inflexible, this court has allowed untimely appeals when 'defense counsel has inexcusably or ineffectively failed to pursue a defendant's appeal from a criminal conviction in the first instance.'" Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Uchima.green1 sentence2021For the purposes of this rule, a judgment is final when the time for direct appeal under Rule 4(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure has expired without appeal being taken, or if direct appeal was taken, when the appellate process has terminated, provided that a petition under this rule seeking relief from judgment may be filed during the pendency of direct appeal if leave is granted by order of the appellate court. 16 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER untimely appeals, the "general rule" is that "compliance with the requirement of timely filing of a noti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2017See Jackson, 81 Hawaii at 54, 912 P.2d at 86 (observing that a remedy that increases congestion in the courts “disgraces the administration of justice”); United States v. Koory, 20 F.3d 844, 849 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that 20 Thus, it may be argued that only dismissal with prejudice effectuates the purposes of the rule and so, the impact of reprosecution on the administration of HRPP Rule 48 weighs in favor of dismissal with prejudice. 2017See Jackson, 81 Hawaii at 53 n.13, 912 P.2d at 85 n.13 (dismissal without prejudice “[i]n effect . . . rewards unacceptable delay with further delay” (quoting Robert L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael J. Koorygreen1 sentence2017See Jackson, 81 Hawaii at 54, 912 P.2d at 86 (observing that a remedy that increases congestion in the courts “disgraces the administration of justice”); United States v. Koory, 20 F.3d 844, 849 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that 20 Thus, it may be argued that only dismissal with prejudice effectuates the purposes of the rule and so, the impact of reprosecution on the administration of HRPP Rule 48 weighs in favor of dismissal with prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richiegreen2 sentences2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 33 , 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction”) (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai'i 128, 145 , 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). 3. 2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 33 , 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction”) (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai'i 128, 145 , 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quitoggreen2 sentences2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 33 , 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction”) (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai'i 128, 145 , 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). 3. 2010See State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 33 , 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) ("Evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction”) (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai'i 128, 145 , 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)) (brackets omitted). 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kramergreen2 sentences2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) (“Generally, we do not ad dress issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument.”); Kustura v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) (“We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we wil 2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) ("Generally, we do not address *474 issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant's] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument."); Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) ("We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elenekigreen2 sentences2002See Eleneki at 566 , 993 P.2d at 1195 (citing Dixon , 83 Hawai`i at 22, 924 P.2d at 190 ). 2002See Eleneki at 566 , 993 P.2d at 1195 (citing Dixon , 83 Hawai‘i at 22, 924 P.2d at 190 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2002See Eleneki at 566 , 993 P.2d at 1195 (citing Dixon , 83 Hawai`i at 22, 924 P.2d at 190 ). 2002See Eleneki at 566 , 993 P.2d at 1195 (citing Dixon , 83 Hawai‘i at 22, 924 P.2d at 190 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Delos Reyes v. Kuboyama
green
1 sentence2024We nevertheless affirm the circuit court’s judgment because, despite its implication that claim preclusion would have applied if the claims had been the same, this court “may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record, even if the circuit court did not rely on it.” Reyes, 76 Hawai‘i at 140, 870 P.2d at 1284 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Mark
green
2 sentences2010Mark, 120 Hawai'i at 532 , 210 P.3d at 55 . 44 . 2010Mark, 120 Hawai'i at 532 , 210 P.3d at 55 . 44 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
KUSTURA v. Department of Labor and Industries
green
2 sentences2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) (“Generally, we do not ad dress issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument.”); Kustura v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) (“We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we wil 2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) ("Generally, we do not address *474 issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant's] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument."); Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) ("We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kustura v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) (“Generally, we do not ad dress issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument.”); Kustura v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) (“We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we wil 2009Dec.23, 2008) (emphasis added); see also State v. Kramer, 668 N.W.2d 32 , 35 n. 1 (Minn.App.2003) ("Generally, we do not address *474 issues not raised below[, but b]ecause we cannot address [defendant's] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence without first addressing the burden shouldered by each party, we must, for the purposes of our analysis, reach the merits of this argument."); Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.App. 655 , 175 P.3d 1117 , 1128 n. 35 (Div. 1 2008) ("We note that while it was raised below, the workers did not raise this specific issue on appeal ... [b]ut we | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Driggers v. Commercial Credit Corp.
green
1 sentence1985Driggers v. *620 Commercial Credit Corp., 31 N.C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences1984Therefore, a person stopped for an alleged traffic violation is usually detained only long enough to enable the police officer to issue a citation. 5 The issues in Berkemer v. McCarty were whether Miranda “govern[ed] the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation by a suspect accused of a misdemeanor traffic offense” and whether “the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop constitute^] custodial interrogation for the purposes of a doctrine enunciated in Miranda."_U.S. at__, 104 S. Ct. at 3142 . 1984In answering the first question the Court held “that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefits of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda , regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.” Id. at_, 104 S. Ct. at 3148 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.