prudential rule in Hawaii

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2007See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) ("This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth — as well as fairness — is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question."); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) ("The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distinguishes our adversary system of justice from the inquisitorial one.") (Citing United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 249 , 1

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2007See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) ("This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth — as well as fairness — is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question."); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) ("The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distinguishes our adversary system of justice from the inquisitorial one.") (Citing United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 249 , 1

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2007See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) ("This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth — as well as fairness — is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question."); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) ("The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distinguishes our adversary system of justice from the inquisitorial one.") (Citing United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 249 , 1

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2010Fields elaborated on this standard by quoting other courts highlighting the importance of the adversary system, as follows: See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 [, 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ] (1988) (“This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth—as well as fairness—is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”); Hines v. United States, 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.1992) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distin

2019This court has observed that " 'ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing,' and the relevant prudential rule deals with '[p]roblems of prematurity and abstractness' that may prevent adjudication in all but the exceptional case." State v. Fields , 67 Haw. 268 , 274, 686 P.2d 1379 , 1385 (1984) (citations and some brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

2019This court has observed that " 'ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing,' and the relevant prudential rule deals with '[p]roblems of prematurity and abstractness' that may prevent adjudication in all but the exceptional case." State v. Fields , 67 Haw. 268 , 274, 686 P.2d 1379 , 1385 (1984) (citations and some brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Standing is a prudential doctrine, see Citizens for Protection of North Kohala Coastline v. County of Hawai'i, 91 Hawai'i 94, 100 , 979 P.2d 1120, 1126 (1999), and where no prudential reasons have ever been set forth in support of a particular standing requirement, review of that requirement is warranted, as we do so here.

2014Standing is a prudential doctrine, see Citizens for Protection of North Kohala Coastline v. County of Hawai#i, 91 Hawai#i 94, 100, 979 P.2d 1120, 1126 (1999), and where no prudential reasons have ever been set forth in support of a particular standing requirement, review of that requirement is warranted, as we do so here.

2014Trs. of Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154, 170 , 737 P.2d 446, 455-56 (1987).

2014Trs. of Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154, 170 , 737 P.2d 446, 455-56 (1987).

1984Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583, 588 , 92 S.Ct. 1716, 1719 , 32 L.Ed.2d 317 (1972)." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 680 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976).

1984Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583, 588 , 92 S.Ct. 1716, 1719 , 32 L.Ed.2d 317 (1972)." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 680 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976).

1984For "even in the absence of constitutional restrictions, courts [must] still carefully weigh the wisdom, efficacy, and timeliness of an exercise of their power before acting." Id. "[R]ipeness is peculiarly a question of timing," Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 140 , 95 S.Ct. 335, 356 , 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974), and the relevant prudential rule deals with "`[p]roblems of prematurity and abstractness' that may prevent adjudication in all but the exceptional case.

1984For "even in the absence of constitutional restrictions, courts [must] still carefully weigh the wisdom, efficacy, and timeliness of an exercise of their power before acting." Id. "[R]ipeness is peculiarly a question of timing," Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 140 , 95 S.Ct. 335, 356 , 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974), and the relevant prudential rule deals with "`[p]roblems of prematurity and abstractness' that may prevent adjudication in all but the exceptional case.

1984Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583, 588 , 92 S.Ct. 1716, 1719 , 32 L.Ed.2d 317 (1972)." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 680 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976).

1984Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 U.S. 583, 588 , 92 S.Ct. 1716, 1719 , 32 L.Ed.2d 317 (1972)." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 680 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976).