deferential abuse of discretion standard (Hawaii) · Go Syfert
← Hawaii issues

deferential abuse of discretion standard in Hawaii

7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Paul's Electrical Service, Inc. v. Befitelgreen
haw · 2004 · cited in 4 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2004–2024
2 sentences

2024Serv., Inc. v. Befitel, 104 Hawai‘i 412, 419, 91 P.3d 494, 501 (2004)).

2024Additionally, "[i]f the legislature has granted the agency discretion over a particular matter, then we review the agency's action pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard (bearing in mind the legislature determines the boundaries of that discretion)." Id. at 419-20, 91 P.3d at 501–02.

24
Kolio v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority.green
haw · 2015 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Kolio, 135 Hawai#i at 271, 349 P.3d at 378 .

11
State v. Pulawagreen
haw · 1980 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

11
State v. Mendoncagreen
haw · 1985 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

11
State v. Corpuzgreen
haw · 1984 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

11
State v. Hadsellgreen
orctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

11
State v. Brumagegreen
iowa · 1989 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Water Use Permit Applications green
haw · 2004
2 sentences

2024We generally review the Commission’s action “pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Waiāhole II, 105 Hawai‘i at 8, 93 P.3d at 650 (quoting Paul’s Elec.

2004With all due respect, I do not agree, however, that after the adoption of HRS § 91-14(g), [1] we "review the Water Commission's *670 action `pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard.'" Majority opinion at 8, 93 P.3d at 650 (quoting Paul's Elec.

22004–2024
'Ōlelo v. Office of Information Practices green
haw · 2007
1 sentence

2009If the legislature has not granted the agency discretion over a particular matter, then the agency's conclusions are subject to de novo review. *416 `Olelo, 116 Hawai`i at 344, 173 P.3d at 491 .

12009–2009
Right to Know Committee v. City Council green
hawapp · 2008
1 sentence

2009Here, the circuit court did not err, regardless of whether OIP's decision is reviewed de novo or under the deferential abuse of discretion standard (OIP's construction was "palpaply erroneous," Right to Know Comm., 117 Hawai`i at 13, 175 P.3d at 123 ).

12009–2009
State v. Michielli green
wash · 1997
1 sentence

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

12005–2005
State v. Sauve green
vt · 1995
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

12005–2005
People v. Morrow green
michctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

12005–2005
State v. Michielli green
wash · 1997
1 sentence

2005Hawaii precedent indicates that the applicable standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint is a deferential abuse of discretion standard (State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283 , 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985); State v. Corpuz, 67 Haw. 438, 440 , 690 P.2d 282, 284 (1984); State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 215 , 614 P.2d 373, 377 (1980).) This precedent is supported by precedent in other states (State v. Hadsell, 129 Or.App. 171, 174-76 , 878 P.2d 444, 446-47 (1994); People v. Morrow, 214 Mich.App. 158, 161-64 , 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995); State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140 , 666 A.2d 1164 (1995); State v.

12005–2005
Hirosane v. Administrative Director of Courts neutral
haw · 2004
1 sentence

2004With all due respect, I do not agree, however, that after the adoption of HRS § 91-14(g), 1 we “review the Water Commission’s action ‘pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Majority opinion at 8, 98 P.3d at 650 (quoting Paul’s Elec.

12004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 954 (1987–2026) WV 359 (1995–2026) TN 50 (2002–2026) VA 38 (2004–2026) TX 23 (1998–2025) IL 19 (2004–2026) KY 16 (2010–2026) OH 15 (1996–2025) NJ 14 (2018–2025) NM 13 (1998–2022) CT 12 (2006–2026) PA 12 (2010–2021) MN 10 (2005–2026) MI 10 (2002–2024) KS 10 (2010–2026) FL 9 (2013–2026) MS 8 (2000–2015) WA 7 (1999–2024) HI 7 (2004–2024) RI 7 (1998–2026) AK 5 (1995–2025) MD 5 (2004–2018) CO 5 (2015–2024) DE 4 (1987–2026) MA 4 (1999–2005) OK 4 (2001–2021) ME 2 (2011–2018) DC 2 (1998–1998) AZ 2 (2018–2024) MT 2 (2005–2013) VT 2 (2012–2013) NV 2 (2019–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check