7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rodriguesgreen2 sentences2023Citing State v. Rodrigues, 113 Hawai‘i 41, 147 P.3d 825 (2006), the ICA framed the prosecutor’s line of inquiry “as detailing the actions Detective Clifton took the night of the incident[.]” Borge, SDO at 5 (citing Rodrigues, 113 Hawai‘i at 49–50, 147 P.3d at 833-34 ). 2023Citing State v. Rodrigues, 113 Hawai‘i 41, 147 P.3d 825 (2006), the ICA framed the prosecutor’s line of inquiry “as detailing the actions Detective Clifton took the night of the incident[.]” Borge, SDO at 5 (citing Rodrigues, 113 Hawai‘i at 49–50, 147 P.3d at 833-34 ). | 2 | 3 |
Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Inc.green1 sentence2020“Hawaii’s workers’ compensation presumption places a heavy burden on the employer to disprove that an injury is work-related.” Korsak, 94 Hawaiʻi at 307, 12 P.3d at 1248 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joseph C. Ortizgreen1 sentence2006Cf. United States v. Ortiz, 776 F.2d 864, 865 (9th Cir.1985) (“Even if the prosecutor was in some degree remiss [in commenting on defendant’s pre-trial silence concerning exculpatory testimony], the incident would not justify a reversal. | 1 | 1 |
Neku v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 1 |
Bobo v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte 2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 1 |
Salazar v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 1 |
State v. LJPgreen1 sentence2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 1 |
People v. Foskeygreen2 sentences2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte 2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Alaska
green
1 sentence2003Id. (some brackets added and some in original); see also Salazar v. State, 559 P.2d 66, 79 (Alaska 1976) (holding that “[w]hen ... the defendant’s right to confront effectively the witnesses against him by exploring their possible bias or prejudice is balanced against a rule based solely on policy grounds, the defendant’s constitutional rights must prevail”); Neku v. United States, 620 A.2d 259, 263 (D.C.1993) (holding that “when a defendant proffers evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who is important to the government’s case and those statements otherwise would be protecte | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Arizona v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences1990Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at ___ , 109 S.Ct. at 336 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 288 . *674 Nor will the Appellant be precluded from pursuing a relevant line of defense that might tend to favor him. 1990Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at ___ , 109 S.Ct. at 336 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 288 . *674 Nor will the Appellant be precluded from pursuing a relevant line of defense that might tend to favor him. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.