Medeiros test in Hawaii

2008In the course of formulating the Medeiros test, we quoted the following passage from Emerson College: “[F]ees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner ‘not shared by other members of a society,’ National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 341 [, 94 S.Ct. 1146 , 39 L.Ed.2d 370 ] ... (1974)[,] they are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge, and the

2008In the course of formulating the Medeiros test, we quoted the following passage from Emerson College: “[F]ees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner ‘not shared by other members of a society,’ National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 341 [, 94 S.Ct. 1146 , 39 L.Ed.2d 370 ] ... (1974)[,] they are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge, and the

2022In her concurrence, Justice Nakayama explained that the circuit court’s reasons for denying Medeiros’s motion for a DANC were “merely elements of the offenses . . . to which Medeiros pled.” Id. at 14, 454 P.3d at 1082 (Nakayama, J., concurring).

2018See Craft v. Peebles , 78 Hawai'i 287 , 295, 893 P.2d 138 , 146 (1995) (holding that, absent a definitive pretrial ruling on admissibility, a renewed objection at trial is required to preserve the issue for appellate review).

2018See Craft v. Peebles , 78 Hawai'i 287 , 295, 893 P.2d 138 , 146 (1995) (holding that, absent a definitive pretrial ruling on admissibility, a renewed objection at trial is required to preserve the issue for appellate review).

2008Our holding in In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 9 P.3d 409 (2000), this court’s only subsequent application of the Medei-ros test in a published opinion, does not preclude our conclusion that the Medeiros test applies solely to alleged user fees.

2008Our holding in In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 9 P.3d 409 (2000), this court’s only subsequent application of the Medei-ros test in a published opinion, does not preclude our conclusion that the Medeiros test applies solely to alleged user fees.

2008In the course of formulating the Medeiros test, we quoted the following passage from Emerson College: “[F]ees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner ‘not shared by other members of a society,’ National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 341 [, 94 S.Ct. 1146 , 39 L.Ed.2d 370 ] ... (1974)[,] they are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge, and the

2008In the course of formulating the Medeiros test, we quoted the following passage from Emerson College: “[F]ees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner ‘not shared by other members of a society,’ National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 341 [, 94 S.Ct. 1146 , 39 L.Ed.2d 370 ] ... (1974)[,] they are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge, and the

1999We have held in the past that, "in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, we may determine the intention of the legislature from a 'consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other.’ ” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 518 , 928 P.2d 1, 12 (1996) (quoting Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617 , 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

1999We have held in the past that, "in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, we may determine the intention of the legislature from a 'consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other.’ ” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 518 , 928 P.2d 1, 12 (1996) (quoting Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617 , 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

1999We have held in the past that, "in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, we may determine the intention of the legislature from a 'consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other.’ ” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 518 , 928 P.2d 1, 12 (1996) (quoting Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617 , 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

1999We have held in the past that, "in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, we may determine the intention of the legislature from a 'consideration of the entire act, its nature, its object, and the consequences that would result from construing it one way or the other.’ ” State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 518 , 928 P.2d 1, 12 (1996) (quoting Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617 , 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).