9 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2006 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
MacHado v. Stategreen1 sentence2005The Rhode Island Supreme Court, applying the substantial compliance standard, held that although verbatim recitation of the statutory warning was not required, “neither a generalized reference to potential immigration consequences nor an advisement of deportation alone gives adequate notice to an alien defendant of the possibility of exclusion or denial of naturalization.” Id. at 513 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hoaggreen2 sentences2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig 2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bernardogreen2 sentences2005E.g., State v. Steingraber, 296 N.W.2d 543, 545-46 (S.D.1980); People v. Bernardo, 89 Misc.2d 931 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977); see also, Commonwealth v. McDonnell, 512 Pa. 172 , 516 A.2d 329, 330-31 (1986). . 2005E.g., State v. Steingraber, 296 N.W.2d 543, 545-46 (S.D.1980); People v. Bernardo, 89 Misc.2d 931 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977); see also, Commonwealth v. McDonnell, 512 Pa. 172 , 516 A.2d 329, 330-31 (1986). . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tacygreen2 sentences2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig 2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersongreen2 sentences2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig 2005People v. Peterson, 9 Cal.3d 717 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (1973); People v. Tacy, 195 Cal.App.3d 1402 , 241 Cal.Rptr. 400, 406-12 (1987); People v. Hoag, 83 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 561-65 (2000). 2 The California Supreme Court summarized the substantial compliance rule as follows: When police procedures fail to conform to the precise demands of the [knoek-and-announce] statute but nevertheless serve its policies we have deemed that there has been such substantial compliance that technical and, in the particular circumstances, insignificant defaults may be ig | 1 | 1 |
State v. Steingrabergreen1 sentence2005E.g., State v. Steingraber, 296 N.W.2d 543, 545-46 (S.D.1980); People v. Bernardo, 89 Misc.2d 931 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977); see also, Commonwealth v. McDonnell, 512 Pa. 172 , 516 A.2d 329, 330-31 (1986). . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McDonnellgreen2 sentences2005E.g., State v. Steingraber, 296 N.W.2d 543, 545-46 (S.D.1980); People v. Bernardo, 89 Misc.2d 931 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977); see also, Commonwealth v. McDonnell, 512 Pa. 172 , 516 A.2d 329, 330-31 (1986). . 2005E.g., State v. Steingraber, 296 N.W.2d 543, 545-46 (S.D.1980); People v. Bernardo, 89 Misc.2d 931 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977); see also, Commonwealth v. McDonnell, 512 Pa. 172 , 516 A.2d 329, 330-31 (1986). . | 1 | 1 |
Lucille Prussner, as of the Estate of Aileen E. Pfeifer v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., id. at 223-26 (“Reading the Tax Court’s decisions on the subject of substantial compliance is enough to make one’s head swim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Vázquez Sánchez v. District Court of Guayamagreen2 sentences1937See also Gibson v. Hubbard, 57 Pac. 88 ; Hudson v. Von Weise, 104 S. W. 602 .) As pointed out by the supreme court of Montana in Gibson v. Hubbard, supra, the rule should either be enforced or abolished., A strict compliance with the rule is not required but a substantial and reasonable observance thereof becomes necessary for the twofold purpose of 1. enabling the appellate court readily to appreciate and understand the errors complained of, and 2. to enable opposing counsel to know what points are relied upon and what is urged as error in the action of the court. (3 Am. 1937See also Gibson v. Hubbard, 57 Pac. 88 ; Hudson v. Von Weise, 104 S. W. 602 .) As pointed out by the supreme court of Montana in Gibson v. Hubbard, supra, the rule should either be enforced or abolished., A strict compliance with the rule is not required but a substantial and reasonable observance thereof becomes necessary for the twofold purpose of 1. enabling the appellate court readily to appreciate and understand the errors complained of, and 2. to enable opposing counsel to know what points are relied upon and what is urged as error in the action of the court. (3 Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gates
green
2 sentences2006To these questions, we applied the strict compliance standard, stating that “there was strict compliance with the provisions of section 11-111-2.1 of the Department of Health’s Rules for the Testing of Blood, Breath and Other Bodily Substances for Alcohol Concentration having a direct bearing on the validity and accuracy of the Intoxilyzer test result.” Id. at 446 , 777 P.2d at 721 . 2006To these questions, we applied the strict compliance standard, stating that “there was strict compliance with the provisions of section 11-111-2.1 of the Department of Health’s Rules for the Testing of Blood, Breath and Other Bodily Substances for Alcohol Concentration having a direct bearing on the validity and accuracy of the Intoxilyzer test result.” Id. at 446 , 777 P.2d at 721 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Tengan
green
2 sentences2006Upon the example of Gates , we hold that the strict compliance standard does not apply to the question whether a breath alcohol testing instrument was validly approved for use under the DOH rules. “[N]or do we mean to suggest an agency is free to approve a testing instrument at its whim or fancy.” Tengan, 67 Haw. at 459 , 691 P.2d at 371 . 17 We simply decide that the DUI coordinator’s testimony at trial, following, was sufficient foundation to admit Defendant’s breath alcohol test result into evidence. are not persuaded that the Intoxilyzer is "fail-safe” in all respects, including its accura 2006Upon the example of Gates , we hold that the strict compliance standard does not apply to the question whether a breath alcohol testing instrument was validly approved for use under the DOH rules. “[N]or do we mean to suggest an agency is free to approve a testing instrument at its whim or fancy.” Tengan, 67 Haw. at 459 , 691 P.2d at 371 . 17 We simply decide that the DUI coordinator’s testimony at trial, following, was sufficient foundation to admit Defendant’s breath alcohol test result into evidence. are not persuaded that the Intoxilyzer is "fail-safe” in all respects, including its accura | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wilson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2005It is true that both the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution require only that a search or seizure must be reasonable. 11 See Dixon, 83 Hawai'i at 22-24, 924 P.2d at 190-92 (noting that the common-law “knock-and-announce” principle is part of the constitutional reasonableness inquiry and quoting with approval Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934 , 115 S.Ct. 1914 , 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995), for the proposition that not “every entry must be preceded by announcement” because the “Fourth Amendment’s flexible requirement of reasonabl 2005It is true that both the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution require only that a search or seizure must be reasonable. 11 See Dixon, 83 Hawai'i at 22-24, 924 P.2d at 190-92 (noting that the common-law “knock-and-announce” principle is part of the constitutional reasonableness inquiry and quoting with approval Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934 , 115 S.Ct. 1914 , 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995), for the proposition that not “every entry must be preceded by announcement” because the “Fourth Amendment’s flexible requirement of reasonabl | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Douangmala
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Douangmala, 253 Wis.2d 173 , 646 N.W.2d 1 (2002), the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the strict compliance standard and held that if a circuit court failed to give a defendant the specific deportation warning required by Wisconsin Statutes (Wis.Stat.) § 971.08(1)(c) 3 and the “defendant moves the court and demonstrates that the plea is likely to result in the defendant’s deportation, then [Wis. Stat.] § 971.08(2)[ 4 ] requires the circuit court to vacate the conviction and to permit the defendant to withdraw the guilty or no-contest plea.” Id. at 10 (footnote added). 2005In State v. Douangmala, 253 Wis.2d 173 , 646 N.W.2d 1 (2002), the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the strict compliance standard and held that if a circuit court failed to give a defendant the specific deportation warning required by Wisconsin Statutes (Wis.Stat.) § 971.08(1)(c) 3 and the “defendant moves the court and demonstrates that the plea is likely to result in the defendant’s deportation, then [Wis. Stat.] § 971.08(2)[ 4 ] requires the circuit court to vacate the conviction and to permit the defendant to withdraw the guilty or no-contest plea.” Id. at 10 (footnote added). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Watumull v. Tax Commissioner
neutral
1 sentence1967The majority appears to rely on the following portion of the opinion: “* * * A strict compliance with the rule is not required but a substantial and reasonable observance thereof becomes necessary for the twofold purpose of 1. enabling the appellate court readily to appreciate and understand the errors complained of, and 2. to enable opposing counsel to know what points are relied upon and what is urged as error in the action of the court.” Watumull v. Tax Commissioner, supra at 86 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Mineola Tribe No. 114 v. Lizer
neutral
1 sentence1913Mellows v. Mellows, 61 N. H. 137, it was held that a gift, of a fund, payable by a mutual benefit association contained in the will of a deceased member was not a compliance with a rule of the association which specified the beneficiaries “unless otherwise ordered in writing by the deceased member, such order to be signed by two witnesses and acknowledged before a justice of the peace.” See also Mineola Tribe, etc., v. Lizer, 117 Md. 136, 140 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Hapai v. Pratt
green
1 sentence1912In concluding its opinion in the case of Sapai v. Pratt, supra, this court said, “We may add that, if it appeared in any way, as it does not in this case, that the compli anee with, the condition as to residence was not made in good faith-, a different conclusion might follow.” We do not say that the fact that the freeholder’s place of abode lacked cooking' or bathing facilities, or that trees were not planted, or that the place was not improved after it was first occupied, or that the freeholder boarded elsewhere, or kept some of his clothing at another place, or that he did not sleep every n | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.