7 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1953–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Honolulugreen2 sentences2019The attorney-client privilege protects "confidential communications" between a client and the client's attorney "made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client[.]" Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 503(b) ; see also Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City and Cty. of Honolulu , 102 Hawai'i 465 , 484, 78 P.3d 1 , 20 (2003) ("The attorney-client privilege is codified in the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 503 [.]"). 2019The attorney-client privilege protects “confidential communications” between a client and the client’s attorney “made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client[.]” Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 503(b); see also Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 102 Hawaii 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20 (2003) (“The attorney-client privilege is codified in the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 503[.]”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kaakimakagreen2 sentences2006Kaakimaka, 84 Hawai'i at 29 [5, 933 P.2d at 632 ]. *23 (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphases in original.) The circuit court then granted the Appellees’ motion and dismissed the indictment against them with prejudice. 2006Kaakimaka, 84 Hawai'i at 29 [5, 933 P.2d at 632 ]. *23 (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphases in original.) The circuit court then granted the Appellees’ motion and dismissed the indictment against them with prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Beamer v. Nishikigreen2 sentences2006To the extent that Appellees’ motion contained documents related to matters outside the pleadings, we treat the motion as a mo *527 tion for summary judgment under HRCP Rules 12(c) 11 and 56. 12 “Unlike other appellate matters, in reviewing summary judgment decisions an appellate court steps into the shoes of the trial court and applies the same legal standard as the trial court applied.” Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 577 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1270 (1983) (quoting Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. 226, 228 , 649 P.2d 1144, 1147 (1982)). 2006To the extent that Appellees’ motion contained documents related to matters outside the pleadings, we treat the motion as a mo *527 tion for summary judgment under HRCP Rules 12(c) 11 and 56. 12 “Unlike other appellate matters, in reviewing summary judgment decisions an appellate court steps into the shoes of the trial court and applies the same legal standard as the trial court applied.” Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 577 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1270 (1983) (quoting Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. 226, 228 , 649 P.2d 1144, 1147 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Fernandes v. Tenbruggencategreen2 sentences2006To the extent that Appellees’ motion contained documents related to matters outside the pleadings, we treat the motion as a mo *527 tion for summary judgment under HRCP Rules 12(c) 11 and 56. 12 “Unlike other appellate matters, in reviewing summary judgment decisions an appellate court steps into the shoes of the trial court and applies the same legal standard as the trial court applied.” Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 577 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1270 (1983) (quoting Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. 226, 228 , 649 P.2d 1144, 1147 (1982)). 2006To the extent that Appellees’ motion contained documents related to matters outside the pleadings, we treat the motion as a mo *527 tion for summary judgment under HRCP Rules 12(c) 11 and 56. 12 “Unlike other appellate matters, in reviewing summary judgment decisions an appellate court steps into the shoes of the trial court and applies the same legal standard as the trial court applied.” Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 577 , 670 P.2d 1264, 1270 (1983) (quoting Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. 226, 228 , 649 P.2d 1144, 1147 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lidgate v. Danford
green
2 sentences1953On the other hand, the appellees claim that clause H was not framed or designed as a termination provision, that it contains no language which in any way speaks of ■termination of the trust or distribution of the corpus; that it is concerned only with the distribution of income during the period of the trust; that Lidgate v. Danford, 23 Hawaii 317, 323 , interpreted clause H as a general provision to regulate and provide for the distribution of income after the death of the original takers of the income covered by clauses D, E and F, in each of which no provision was made for the substitution 1953On the other hand, the appellees claim that clause H was not framed or designed as a termination provision, that it contains no language which in any way speaks of termination of the trust or distribution of the corpus; that it is concerned only with the distribution of income during the period of the trust; that Lidgate v. Danford, 23 Haw. 317 , 323, interpreted clause H as a general provision to regulate and provide for the distribution of income after the death of the original takers of the income covered by clauses D, E and F, in each of which no provision was made for the substitution upo | 2 | 1953–1953 |
Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Association v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
green
1 sentence1995Nevertheless, in Aka-ka II, the Ninth Circuit held that its: decisions in Keaukaha II, 739 F.2d at 1472 , and Akaka I, holding that beneficiaries of the public trust created by Congress may bring a § 1983 claim[,] are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Suter. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.