7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Hawaii v. UNIDEV, LLC.green2 sentences2026See County of Hawaiʻi v. UNIDEV, LLC, 129 Hawaiʻi 378, 387, 301 P.3d 588, 597 (2013) ("It is axiomatic that where a party fails to raise an argument before the courts below, that argument may be deemed waived for purposes of appeal." (citation omitted)). (4) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a matter of law by failing to find" the BVA Order "was improperly based on unverified statements and without credible evidence." The Circuit Court rejected the Kadings' evidentiary challenge, 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER inter alia, on the grounds of wai 2026See County of Hawaiʻi v. UNIDEV, LLC, 129 Hawaiʻi 378, 387, 301 P.3d 588, 597 (2013) ("It is axiomatic that where a party fails to raise an argument before the courts below, that argument may be deemed waived for purposes of appeal." (citation omitted)). (4) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a matter of law by failing to find" the BVA Order "was improperly based on unverified statements and without credible evidence." The Circuit Court rejected the Kadings' evidentiary challenge, 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER inter alia, on the grounds of wai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinerogreen2 sentences1996See State v. Pinero, 75 Haw. 282 , 291 n. 4, 859 P.2d 1369 , 1374 n. 4 (1993) (holding that even if an objection is made at trial, "if the grounds of error urged on appeal were not made jn support of the objection below, we will not overturn the trial court absent plain error"). 11 . 1996See State v. Pinero, 75 Haw. 282 , 291 n. 4, 859 P.2d 1369 , 1374 n. 4 (1993) (holding that even if an objection is made at trial, "if the grounds of error urged on appeal were not made jn support of the objection below, we will not overturn the trial court absent plain error"). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Okamuragreen2 sentences1993See State v. Okamura, 63 Haw. 342, 344 , 627 P.2d 282, 283 (1981). 1993See State v. Okamura, 63 Haw. 342, 344 , 627 P.2d 282, 283 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Estate Bernice P. Bishopgreen1 sentence1988The doctrine of res judicata essentially provides that “[t]he judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a new action in any court between the same parties or their privies concerning the same subject matter, and precludes the relitigation, not only of the issues which were actually litigated in the first action, but also of all grounds of claim or defense 18 which might have been properly litigated in the first action but were not litigated or decided.” Estate Bernice P. Bishop, 36 Haw. 403, 416 (1943). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vance
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Scott v. Pilipo
neutral
1 sentence2009Id. at 739-40 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Silver v. Queen's Hospital
green
2 sentences1988We hold that Hall II is precluded by Hall I under the doctrine of res judicata. *281 The principles governing the instant case are stated in Silver v. Queen’s Hospital, 63 Haw. 430 , 629 P.2d 1116 (1983), in which the supreme court affirmed a summary judgment against the plaintiff on the grounds that under the doctrine of res judicata a dismissal of the plaintiffs prior federal suit barred the state action. 1988We hold that Hall II is precluded by Hall I under the doctrine of res judicata. *281 The principles governing the instant case are stated in Silver v. Queen’s Hospital, 63 Haw. 430 , 629 P.2d 1116 (1983), in which the supreme court affirmed a summary judgment against the plaintiff on the grounds that under the doctrine of res judicata a dismissal of the plaintiffs prior federal suit barred the state action. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Territory v. Jellings
neutral
1 sentence1943The Territory contends that the grounds of the exception are too general to permit appellate consideration of the alleged error in the finding of guilt within the authority of Ter. v. Jellings, 33 Haw. 103 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.