7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. T. Brent Mauro (069079)green2 sentences2015See Ten Stary Dom P’ship v. Mauro, 216 N.J. 16 , 76 A.3d 1236, 1245 (2013) (“[N]ot every deviation from prescribed bulk standards implicates the same concerns.”). 2015See Ten Stary Dom P’ship v. Mauro, 216 N.J. 16 , 76 A.3d 1236, 1245 (2013) (“[N]ot every deviation from prescribed bulk standards implicates the same concerns.”). | 1 | 1 |
Life of the Land v. Land Use Commissiongreen2 sentences2007(Quoting HRCP Rule 12(b) and (h), see supra note 5.) HHIA argued in the alternative that, were the director to claim that his motion asserted a challenge of jurisdiction rather than venue, he would be mistaken inasmuch as "venue is generally not a jurisdictional factor in Hawai[']i." [7] (Citing Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm'n, 58 Haw. 292, 294-95, 298 , 568 P.2d 1189, 1191-94 (1977).) Construing its *529 argument generously, HHIA seems to have asserted that, rather than creating a territorial limitation on subject matter jurisdiction, HRS § 91-7(a) augments HRS § 603-36(5) (1993), [8] gra 2007(Quoting HRCP Rule 12(b) and (h), see supra note 5.) HHIA argued in the alternative that, were the director to claim that his motion asserted a challenge of jurisdiction rather than venue, he would be mistaken inasmuch as "venue is generally not a jurisdictional factor in Hawai[']i." [7] (Citing Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm'n, 58 Haw. 292, 294-95, 298 , 568 P.2d 1189, 1191-94 (1977).) Construing its *529 argument generously, HHIA seems to have asserted that, rather than creating a territorial limitation on subject matter jurisdiction, HRS § 91-7(a) augments HRS § 603-36(5) (1993), [8] gra | 1 | 1 |
Sousaris v. Millergreen2 sentences2001Depending on cases that discuss motions for reconsideration in the circuit court, Petitioner argues that the Director’s motion was procedurally improper because “reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding[,]” 7 Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai'i 505, 513 , 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000) (citations and footnote omitted), and the Director chose not to raise his objections at the petition hearing. 8 The Director contends that the court’s judicial review was equivalent to an appellate proce 2001Depending on cases that discuss motions for reconsideration in the circuit court, Petitioner argues that the Director’s motion was procedurally improper because “reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding[,]” 7 Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai'i 505, 513 , 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000) (citations and footnote omitted), and the Director chose not to raise his objections at the petition hearing. 8 The Director contends that the court’s judicial review was equivalent to an appellate proce | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2005Korean Buddhist Temple II stated that, "[although the Temple seems to have prevailed on the issue raised by Concerned Citizens (i.e., whether the Director was allowed to rule that the height of the Hall can exceed the LUO requirements as a nonconforming use), it apparently decided to appeal the decisions of the ZBA and the circuit court on this question anyway.” 87 Hawai'i at 228 n. 17, 953 P.2d at 1326 n. 17. 3 . 2005Korean Buddhist Temple II stated that, "[although the Temple seems to have prevailed on the issue raised by Concerned Citizens (i.e., whether the Director was allowed to rule that the height of the Hall can exceed the LUO requirements as a nonconforming use), it apparently decided to appeal the decisions of the ZBA and the circuit court on this question anyway.” 87 Hawai'i at 228 n. 17, 953 P.2d at 1326 n. 17. 3 . | 2 | 2005–2008 |
Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Tax Appeal of Travelocity.Com., L.P. v. Director of Taxation.
green
2 sentences2019Lastly, the Director argued that the OTCs are subject to penalties under HRS § 231-39(b) 16 for their undisputed failure to file *1161 returns or pay GET on their merchant rental car transactions because they had not demonstrated the failure was "due to reasonable cause and not due to neglect." (Citing Travelocity , 135 Hawai'i at 113 , 346 P.3d at 182 .) On July 26, 2016, the OTCs filed an opposition to the Director's motion for partial summary judgment. 2019Lastly, the Director argued that the OTCs are subject to penalties under HRS § 231-39(b) 16 for their undisputed failure to file *1161 returns or pay GET on their merchant rental car transactions because they had not demonstrated the failure was "due to reasonable cause and not due to neglect." (Citing Travelocity , 135 Hawai'i at 113 , 346 P.3d at 182 .) On July 26, 2016, the OTCs filed an opposition to the Director's motion for partial summary judgment. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.