7 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blair v. Inggreen2 sentences2014This court reaffirmed the rule set forth in Wong , holding that “a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees[.]” Id. at 331, 31 P.3d at 188 . 2014This court reaffirmed the rule set forth in Wong , holding that “a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees[.]” Id. at 331, 31 P.3d at 188 . | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Castlegreen1 sentence1983In Re Estate of Lorenzo, 61 Haw. 236 , 602 P.2d 521 (1979), this court reaffirmed that analysis of the nature of statutory dower, stating: In fact, this court in Estate of Castle, 25 Haw. 108, 116 (1919), stated: “[T]he nature of the estate which the wife has by way of dower under the statute is the same as under common law dower so that anything that may be said of common law dower is equally applicable to this estate.” 61 Haw. at 241 , 602 P.2d at 526 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture
green
2 sentences2015In Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai'i 64 , 881 P.2d 1210 (1994), this court reaffirmed the principle that “[c]onstitutional due process protections mandate a hearing whenever the claimant seeks to protect a ‘property interest,’ in other words, a benefit to which the claimant is legitimately entitled.” Id. at 68 , 881 P.2d at 1214 . 2015In Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai'i 64 , 881 P.2d 1210 (1994), this court reaffirmed the principle that “[c]onstitutional due process protections mandate a hearing whenever the claimant seeks to protect a ‘property interest,’ in other words, a benefit to which the claimant is legitimately entitled.” Id. at 68 , 881 P.2d at 1214 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Marcos
green
2 sentences2012This court reaffirmed that the defense should be allowed to “ ‘expose the fact from which the jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the complainant’s motive or bias.’ ” Id. at 121 , 102 P.3d at 365 *40 (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i at 115 , 924 P.2d at 1221 ). 2012This court reaffirmed that the defense should be allowed to “ ‘expose the fact from which the jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the complainant’s motive or bias.’ ” Id. at 121 , 102 P.3d at 365 *40 (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i at 115 , 924 P.2d at 1221 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Balisbisana
green
2 sentences2012This court reaffirmed that the defense should be allowed to “ ‘expose the fact from which the jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the complainant’s motive or bias.’ ” Id. at 121 , 102 P.3d at 365 *40 (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i at 115 , 924 P.2d at 1221 ). 2012This court reaffirmed that the defense should be allowed to “ ‘expose the fact from which the jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the complainant’s motive or bias.’ ” Id. at 121 , 102 P.3d at 365 *40 (quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i at 115 , 924 P.2d at 1221 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Asato v. Matsuda
green
2 sentences2005As this court explained in Birmingham , the Littleton rule is that the State, as the owner and occupier of the ocean water and all the beach area up to the high water mark adjacent to a municipal beach park, does not owe a duty to persons injured as a result of water-related activities, unless the “facts are similar to Asato [v. Matsuda, 55 Haw. 334 , 519 P.2d 1240 (1974)], or analogous thereto. 2005As this court explained in Birmingham , the Littleton rule is that the State, as the owner and occupier of the ocean water and all the beach area up to the high water mark adjacent to a municipal beach park, does not owe a duty to persons injured as a result of water-related activities, unless the “facts are similar to Asato [v. Matsuda, 55 Haw. 334 , 519 P.2d 1240 (1974)], or analogous thereto. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005In Birmingham v. Fodor’s Travel Publications, Inc., 73 Haw. 359 , 833 P.2d 70 (1992), this court reaffirmed the rule enunciated in Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. 55 , 656 P.2d 1336 (1982), with respect to the State’s common law duties as the owner and occupier of the ocean water. 2005In Birmingham v. Fodor’s Travel Publications, Inc., 73 Haw. 359 , 833 P.2d 70 (1992), this court reaffirmed the rule enunciated in Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. 55 , 656 P.2d 1336 (1982), with respect to the State’s common law duties as the owner and occupier of the ocean water. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Littleton v. State
green
2 sentences2005In Birmingham v. Fodor’s Travel Publications, Inc., 73 Haw. 359 , 833 P.2d 70 (1992), this court reaffirmed the rule enunciated in Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. 55 , 656 P.2d 1336 (1982), with respect to the State’s common law duties as the owner and occupier of the ocean water. 2005In Birmingham v. Fodor’s Travel Publications, Inc., 73 Haw. 359 , 833 P.2d 70 (1992), this court reaffirmed the rule enunciated in Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. 55 , 656 P.2d 1336 (1982), with respect to the State’s common law duties as the owner and occupier of the ocean water. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lockhart v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1995Id. at 38 , 109 S.Ct. at 289-90 . 1995Id. at 38 , 109 S.Ct. at 289-90 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences1985Id. at _, 104 S. Ct. at 3145 . 1985Id. at _, 104 S. Ct. at 3145 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Matter of Estate of Lorenzo
green
2 sentences1983In Re Estate of Lorenzo, 61 Haw. 236 , 602 P.2d 521 (1979), this court reaffirmed that analysis of the nature of statutory dower, stating: In fact, this court in Estate of Castle, 25 Haw. 108, 116 (1919), stated: “[T]he nature of the estate which the wife has by way of dower under the statute is the same as under common law dower so that anything that may be said of common law dower is equally applicable to this estate.” 61 Haw. at 241 , 602 P.2d at 526 . 1983In Re Estate of Lorenzo, 61 Haw. 236 , 602 P.2d 521 (1979), this court reaffirmed that analysis of the nature of statutory dower, stating: In fact, this court in Estate of Castle, 25 Haw. 108, 116 (1919), stated: “[T]he nature of the estate which the wife has by way of dower under the statute is the same as under common law dower so that anything that may be said of common law dower is equally applicable to this estate.” 61 Haw. at 241 , 602 P.2d at 526 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.