document requirement in Hawaii

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2011See State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai'i 495, 532 , 229 P.3d 313, 350 (2010) (noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report); see also State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i 425, 443 , 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008) (noting that the report is meant to aid the court in the exercise of its discretionary sentencing authority); Lau, 73 Haw. at 263 , 831 P.2d at 525 (presuming that the sentencing court complied with the statutory requirement of according due consideration to the pre-sentence report when it had the document at the hearing).

2022Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334 , 1338 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1994); Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai i 171, 176, 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996) (applying the separate document rule to an order dismissing a complaint for want of prosecution).

2010The supreme court does not apply the separate document rule (see Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 HawaiYi 115, 869 P.2d 1334 (1994)} to special proceedings for motions for post-conviction relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40.

2022Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334 , 1338 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1994); Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Hawai i 171, 176, 914 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1996) (applying the separate document rule to an order dismissing a complaint for want of prosecution).

2005Id. at 410-11, 49 P.3d at 376-77 (emphasis omitted).

1999Co., 77 Hawai'i 88, 91 , 881 P.2d 1234, 1237 (1994), we held that, “by virtue of HRS § 658-12, an order confirming an arbitration award is a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.” Furthermore, “in the context of the Arbitration and Award statute where direct appeals are specifically conferred by the statute ... the separate document requirement prescribed in Jenkins [v. Cades Schutte, 76 Hawai'i 115 , 869 P.2d 1334 (1994) ] does not apply." Id. at 93, 881 P.2d at 1239 (emphasis added).

1999Co., 77 Hawai'i 88, 91 , 881 P.2d 1234, 1237 (1994), we held that, “by virtue of HRS § 658-12, an order confirming an arbitration award is a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.” Furthermore, “in the context of the Arbitration and Award statute where direct appeals are specifically conferred by the statute ... the separate document requirement prescribed in Jenkins [v. Cades Schutte, 76 Hawai'i 115 , 869 P.2d 1334 (1994) ] does not apply." Id. at 93, 881 P.2d at 1239 (emphasis added).