demanding standard in Hawaii

1999The primary purpose of Rule 11 is to “set a more demanding standard for establishing the propriety of court filings,” Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471, 473-74 , 887 P.2d 1029, 1031-32 (1995), and “deter baseless filings.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

1999The primary purpose of Rule 11 is to “set a more demanding standard for establishing the propriety of court filings,” Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFL-CIO, 77 Hawai'i 471, 473-74 , 887 P.2d 1029, 1031-32 (1995), and “deter baseless filings.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

2008Id. at 491-93, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (emphases added). .

2008Id. at 491-93, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (emphases added). [3] Specifically, the trial court concluded with regard to the public purpose of Condemnation 2: 97.

2004Workers, Local 646, 77 Hawai'i 471, 474 , 887 P.2d 1029, 1032 (1995).) (Emphasis added.)); Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 27-28 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that a letter to an opposing party was a “paper” for purposes of FRCP Rule 11 where the attorney writing the letter sent a copy to the presiding judge in the case).

2004As the Court said, "[t]he ... serious problems of proving paternity might justify a more demanding standard for illegitimate children ... than that required either for illegitimate children claiming under their mothers' estates or for legitimate children generally." Id. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ; see also id. at 771 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ("Our previous decisions demonstrate a sensitivity to the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity...."); id. at 773 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ("Evidence of paternity may take a variety of forms, some creating more significant problems of inaccuracy and inefficiency

2004As the Court said, “[t]he ... serious problems of proving paternity might justify a more demanding standard for illegitimate children ... than that required either for illegitimate children claiming under their mothers’ estates or for legitimate children generally.” Id. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ; see also id. at 771 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 (“Our previous decisions demonstrate a sensitivity to the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity .... ”); id. at 773 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 (“Evidence of paternity may take a variety of forms, some creating more significant problems of inaccuracy and inefficienc

2004“Thus, in the proper case we have both the power and the duty to order a new trial either where the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict or where a verdict is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 53 Haw. 440, 442 , 496 P.2d 4, 7 (1972). [A]lthough Hawaii courts have not expressly defined the term . “manifest weight,” it appeal’s to be a demanding standard ... premised upon the weight of the evidence: A ... court may set aside a jury verdict when it appears to be so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate bi

2004“Thus, in the proper case we have both the power and the duty to order a new trial either where the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict or where a verdict is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 53 Haw. 440, 442 , 496 P.2d 4, 7 (1972). [A]lthough Hawaii courts have not expressly defined the term . “manifest weight,” it appeal’s to be a demanding standard ... premised upon the weight of the evidence: A ... court may set aside a jury verdict when it appears to be so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate bi

2004Although an absolute bar was inappropriate, "[t]he more serious problems of proving paternity might justify a more demanding standard for illegitimate children claiming under their fathers' estates than that required either for illegitimate children claiming under their mothers' estates or for legitimate children generally." Id. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 (emphasis added).

2004Although an absolute bar was inappropriate, "[t]he more serious problems of proving paternity might justify a more demanding standard for illegitimate children claiming under their fathers' estates than that required either for illegitimate children claiming under their mothers' estates or for legitimate children generally." Id. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 (emphasis added).

2004See also Buck, 89 Hawai'i at 250 , 971 P.2d at 723 (“The primary purpose of Rule 11 is to ‘set a more demanding standard for establishing the propriety of court filings [.] ” (Quoting Lepere v. United Pub.

2004See also Buck, 89 Hawai'i at 250 , 971 P.2d at 723 (“The primary purpose of Rule 11 is to ‘set a more demanding standard for establishing the propriety of court filings [.] ” (Quoting Lepere v. United Pub.

2004Furthermore, its requirements provide "a more demanding standard," in the area of proof of paternity, as the Court advised in Trimble, 430 U.S. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ; see also Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 626 (2001) (discussing the development of the Mitchell standard, and explaining that its strict requirements "promote stability and prevent both fraudulent challenges to, and fraudulent assertions of, paternity").

2004Furthermore, its requirements provide "a more demanding standard," in the area of proof of paternity, as the Court advised in Trimble, 430 U.S. at 770 , 97 S.Ct. 1459 ; see also Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382 , 544 S.E.2d 620, 626 (2001) (discussing the development of the Mitchell standard, and explaining that its strict requirements "promote stability and prevent both fraudulent challenges to, and fraudulent assertions of, paternity").

1995Cf. Adams, 76 Hawai'i at 414-15 , 879 P.2d at 519-20 (applying a more demanding standard of “manifest injustice” to Adams’s postsen-tence motion to withdraw his no contest plea because the prosecutor breached the plea agreement).