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.
6 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1902–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co.green2 sentences2002Cf. Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Hawai'i 477, 488-89 , 6 P.3d 349, 360-61 (2000) (reviewing legislative history to confirm court’s holding based on statute’s clear and unambiguous language); State v. Ramela, 77 Hawai'i 394 , 396 n. 3, 885 P.2d 1135 , 1137 n. 3 (1994) (“Although not necessary to our analysis, we note that the legislative history underlying [the statute] confirms the correctness of our analysis.”). 2002Cf. Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Hawai'i 477, 488-89 , 6 P.3d 349, 360-61 (2000) (reviewing legislative history to confirm court’s holding based on statute’s clear and unambiguous language); State v. Ramela, 77 Hawai'i 394 , 396 n. 3, 885 P.2d 1135 , 1137 n. 3 (1994) (“Although not necessary to our analysis, we note that the legislative history underlying [the statute] confirms the correctness of our analysis.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ramelagreen2 sentences2002Cf. Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Hawai'i 477, 488-89 , 6 P.3d 349, 360-61 (2000) (reviewing legislative history to confirm court’s holding based on statute’s clear and unambiguous language); State v. Ramela, 77 Hawai'i 394 , 396 n. 3, 885 P.2d 1135 , 1137 n. 3 (1994) (“Although not necessary to our analysis, we note that the legislative history underlying [the statute] confirms the correctness of our analysis.”). 2002Cf. Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Hawai'i 477, 488-89 , 6 P.3d 349, 360-61 (2000) (reviewing legislative history to confirm court’s holding based on statute’s clear and unambiguous language); State v. Ramela, 77 Hawai'i 394 , 396 n. 3, 885 P.2d 1135 , 1137 n. 3 (1994) (“Although not necessary to our analysis, we note that the legislative history underlying [the statute] confirms the correctness of our analysis.”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. McKellar
green
2 sentences2015In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 417-18 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), for example, the Court clarified that a rule is new “as long as the correctness of the rule, based on precedent ... is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.’ ” And in Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527-28 , 117 S.Ct. 1517 , 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997), the Court said, “the Teague inquhy • •. asks whether [the case] was dictated by precedent—i.e., whether no other interpretation was reasonable.” If not, it is a new rule. 2015In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 417-18 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), for example, the Court clarified that a rule is new “as long as the correctness of the rule, based on precedent ... is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.’ ” And in Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527-28 , 117 S.Ct. 1517 , 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997), the Court said, “the Teague inquhy • •. asks whether [the case] was dictated by precedent—i.e., whether no other interpretation was reasonable.” If not, it is a new rule. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lambrix v. Singletary
green
2 sentences2015In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 417-18 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), for example, the Court clarified that a rule is new “as long as the correctness of the rule, based on precedent ... is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.’ ” And in Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527-28 , 117 S.Ct. 1517 , 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997), the Court said, “the Teague inquhy • •. asks whether [the case] was dictated by precedent—i.e., whether no other interpretation was reasonable.” If not, it is a new rule. 2015In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 417-18 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), for example, the Court clarified that a rule is new “as long as the correctness of the rule, based on precedent ... is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.’ ” And in Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527-28 , 117 S.Ct. 1517 , 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997), the Court said, “the Teague inquhy • •. asks whether [the case] was dictated by precedent—i.e., whether no other interpretation was reasonable.” If not, it is a new rule. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Industrial Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Perkins
neutral
1 sentence1916Indemnity Co. v. Perkins (Ark.), 98 S. W. 709, 710 ; 22 A. & E. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Howe Machine Co. v. Miner
green
1 sentence1906The defendants say that even in the Gilchrist case the court admitted the correctness of the doctrine for which they now contend as applied in Machine Co. v. Miner, 28 Kan. 441 , and rested its decision solely upon the ground of the necessity of adjudicating priorities among conflicting liens. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Chuch v.GarRison
neutral
1 sentence1906Church v. Garrison, 75 Cal. 199 , did not involve the question of equitable jurisdiction to enforce a statutory lien — in that case being a lien upon a threshing machine for the enforcement of -which the statute gave a complete remedy. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Wheeler v. Winnebago Paper Mills
green
1 sentence1902Therefore the general denial put in issue a Tact necessary to the plaintiff’s recovery, and the demurrer to it was improperly sustained. * * * The correctness of the rule ■that: a pláiníiff must prove, under a general denial, either that the'defendant claims an interest in the land, or that his claim is unfounded, may be a matter of question; but there is no question an ourmiindsltha-t such an answer renders it absolutely necessary for him to prove his own title or interest in the land, and that without such proof he is not entitled to judgment.” See also Wheeler v. Winnebago Paper Mills, 62 M | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Sklower v. Abbott
neutral
1 sentence1902Therefore the general denial put in issue a Tact necessary to the plaintiff’s recovery, and the demurrer to it was improperly sustained. * * * The correctness of the rule ■that: a pláiníiff must prove, under a general denial, either that the'defendant claims an interest in the land, or that his claim is unfounded, may be a matter of question; but there is no question an ourmiindsltha-t such an answer renders it absolutely necessary for him to prove his own title or interest in the land, and that without such proof he is not entitled to judgment.” See also Wheeler v. Winnebago Paper Mills, 62 M | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.