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 1 courts 2023–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.green2 sentences2026Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not 4 Kama's November 22, 2023 Complaint, filed five months after the Family Court issued the June 19, 2023 Order for Protection, named, among others, the family court judge, clerk, and court reporter as defendants, and alleged that the Order for Protection represented a conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a deprivation of rights under color of law under 18 U.S.C. § 242, and a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C 2026Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not 4 Kama's November 22, 2023 Complaint, filed five months after the Family Court issued the June 19, 2023 Order for Protection, named, among others, the family court judge, clerk, and court reporter as defendants, and alleged that the Order for Protection represented a conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 , a deprivation of rights under color of law under 18 U.S.C. § 242 , and a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S | 7 | 7 |
Lambert v. Wahagreen2 sentences2024See id. ("Points not argued may be deemed waived."); Lambert v. Waha, 137 Hawai‘i at 436 n.14, 375 P.3d at 215 n.14 (concluding issue waived where "no discernible argument supporting this specific challenge is raised" in certiorari application); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai‘i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not point to 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER concluding Penisimani failed to prove adverse possession against his co-tenants and had no title to Parcel 33. 2024See id. ("Points not argued may be deemed waived."); Lambert v. Waha, 137 Hawai‘i at 436 n.14, 375 P.3d at 215 n.14 (concluding issue waived where "no discernible argument supporting this specific challenge is raised" in certiorari application); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai‘i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not point to 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER concluding Penisimani failed to prove adverse possession against his co-tenants and had no title to Parcel 33. | 1 | 1 |
Aickin v. Ocean View Investments Co.green1 sentence2024Co., 84 Hawaiʻi 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997) ("The relief granted by a court in equity is discretionary and will not be overturned on review unless the circuit court abused its discretion by issuing a decision that clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of the appellant." (cleaned up)); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, 114 Hawai‘i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that would guid | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.