Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Antonegreen2 sentences2016See Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 71 , 837 P.2d at 1307 (electing not to investigate without adequate inquiry of the facts is not considered a tactical decision); see also Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104-05 (stating the two-fold standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). 19 . 2016See Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 71 , 837 P.2d at 1307 (electing not to investigate without adequate inquiry of the facts is not considered a tactical decision); see also Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104-05 (stating the two-fold standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). 19 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aplacagreen2 sentences2016See Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 71 , 837 P.2d at 1307 (electing not to investigate without adequate inquiry of the facts is not considered a tactical decision); see also Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104-05 (stating the two-fold standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). 19 . 2016See Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 71 , 837 P.2d at 1307 (electing not to investigate without adequate inquiry of the facts is not considered a tactical decision); see also Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104-05 (stating the two-fold standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). 19 . | 1 | 1 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2005Under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5, as quoted by the majority, the mandatory minimum sentence herein is premised on a two-fold requirement "one prior felony conviction" and an "instant conviction" of "a class B felony." The Rivera dissent noted that, in Blakely , the United States Supreme Court further explicated the holding in [ Apprendi ], and emphatically reaffirmed that the United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial mandates that " ` other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statu 2005Under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5, as quoted by the majority, the mandatory minimum sentence herein is premised on a two-fold requirement "one prior felony conviction" and an "instant conviction" of "a class B felony." The Rivera dissent noted that, in Blakely , the United States Supreme Court further explicated the holding in [ Apprendi ], and emphatically reaffirmed that the United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial mandates that " ` other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statu | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences2005Rivera, 106 Hawai'i at 166 , 102 P.3d at 1064 (Acoba, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (brackets omitted). 2005Rivera, 106 Hawai'i at 166 , 102 P.3d at 1064 (Acoba, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1980Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); State v. Kaaheena, supra; State v. Stachler, supra. Using this standard as a measure, this court has held that where a wooden fence effectively prevented peeking from the outside, State v. Boynton, supra, or where gambling activity within the building was shielded from the view of passersby *49 by drapes and Venetian blinds, State v. Kaaheena, supra, or where California grass within a boundary fence was allowed to grow to a height sufficient to hide marijuana plants from normal observation, State v. Kender, supra, 2 the | 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. Texeira
green
2 sentences1993Id. 1993Id. | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005Under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5, as quoted by the majority, the mandatory minimum sentence herein is premised on a two-fold requirement "one prior felony conviction" and an "instant conviction" of "a class B felony." The Rivera dissent noted that, in Blakely , the United States Supreme Court further explicated the holding in [ Apprendi ], and emphatically reaffirmed that the United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial mandates that " ` other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statu 2005Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5, as quoted by the majority, the mandatory minimum sentence herein is premised on a two-fold requirement—-“one prior felony conviction” and an “instant conviction” of “a class B felony.” The Rivera dissent noted that, in Blakely , the United States Supreme Court further explicated the holding in [Apprendi), and emphatically reaffirmed that the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial mandates that “ ‘other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Minnesota v. Carter
green
2 sentences2004Hence, "in sum, when a homeowner chooses to share the privacy of her home" "with a short term guest" such as Petitioner, "the two fold requirement" of a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable expectation of privacy "have been satisfied." Id. 2004Hence, “in sum, when a homeowner chooses to share the privacy of her home” “with a short term guest” such as Petitioner, “the two fold requirement” of a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable expectation of privacy “have been satisfied.” Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Stachler
green
2 sentences1980State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462 (1978); State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412 , 570 P.2d 1323 (1977). 1980State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462 (1978); State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412 , 570 P.2d 1323 (1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Pedro Amezquita v. Rafael Hernandez Colon
green
1 sentence1980That fact alone makes ludicrous any claim that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. 518 F.2d at 11 . *55 In determining whether the defendants in the present case had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, a two-fold test is to be applied: (1) whether they had exhibited an actual expectation of privacy, and (2) whether the expectation was one which society would deem to be reasonable. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Kaaheena
green
2 sentences1980State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462 (1978); State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412 , 570 P.2d 1323 (1977). 1980State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462 (1978); State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412 , 570 P.2d 1323 (1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.