6 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chung v. Ogatagreen2 sentences2017Chung v. Ogata (Ogata II), 53 Haw. 395, 395 , 495 P.2d 26, 26 (1972); Tominaga, 45 Haw. at 610 , 372 6 HRPP Rule (5)(c)(1) states that “the court shall schedule a preliminary hearing, provided that such hearing shall not be held if the defendant is indicted or charged by information before the date set for such hearing.” (Emphasis added.) 12 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** P.2d at 360.7 The same would logically hold true for an information, by which probable cause may also be established. 2017Chung v. Ogata (Ogata II), 53 Haw. 395, 395 , 495 P.2d 26, 26 (1972); Tominaga, 45 Haw. at 610 , 372 6 HRPP Rule (5)(c)(1) states that “the court shall schedule a preliminary hearing, provided that such hearing shall not be held if the defendant is indicted or charged by information before the date set for such hearing.” (Emphasis added.) 12 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** P.2d at 360.7 The same would logically hold true for an information, by which probable cause may also be established. | 2 | 2 |
Shelton Engineering Contractors, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Pacific Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2008Following Clarke , we decided Shelton Engineering Contractors, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Pacific Industries, 51 Haw. 242, 246 , 456 P.2d 222, 225 (1969), in which a party was served with a motion for summary judgment five days before the date set for hearing, when HRCP Rule 56(c) required ten days' prior notice. [3] This court explained that, although the movant did not literally comply with the notice requirement of the rule, he had "complied substantially." Id. 2008Following Clarke , we decided Shelton Engineering Contractors, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Pacific Industries, 51 Haw. 242, 246 , 456 P.2d 222, 225 (1969), in which a party was served with a motion for summary judgment five days before the date set for hearing, when HRCP Rule 56(c) required ten days' prior notice. [3] This court explained that, although the movant did not literally comply with the notice requirement of the rule, he had "complied substantially." Id. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tominaga
green
2 sentences2017Chung v. Ogata (Ogata II), 53 Haw. 395, 395 , 495 P.2d 26, 26 (1972); Tominaga, 45 Haw. at 610 , 372 6 HRPP Rule (5)(c)(1) states that “the court shall schedule a preliminary hearing, provided that such hearing shall not be held if the defendant is indicted or charged by information before the date set for such hearing.” (Emphasis added.) 12 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** P.2d at 360.7 The same would logically hold true for an information, by which probable cause may also be established. 2017Chung v. Ogata (Ogata II), 53 Haw. 395, 395 , 495 P.2d 26, 26 (1972); Tominaga, 45 Haw. at 610 , 372 6 HRPP Rule (5)(c)(1) states that “the court shall schedule a preliminary hearing, provided that such hearing shall not be held if the defendant is indicted or charged by information before the date set for such hearing.” (Emphasis added.) 12 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** P.2d at 360.7 The same would logically hold true for an information, by which probable cause may also be established. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Jensen v. Pratt
green
2 sentences2005Moreover, based on an amendment of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai'i (RCCH) Rule 8 (2000), [3] the ICA has established an exception to the bright line rule set forth in Jensen, 53 Haw. at 202-03 , 491 P.2d at 548 , that a circuit court's failure to comply with the oral hearing requirement of HRCP Rule 56(c) is "harmful error per se. " In Wilder v. Tanouye, 7 Haw.App. 247 , 753 P.2d 816 (1988), the ICA addressed an appeal alleging that the circuit court had erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant without providing him an oral hearing on the appellees' MSJ. 2005Moreover, based on an amendment of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai'i (RCCH) Rule 8 (2000), [3] the ICA has established an exception to the bright line rule set forth in Jensen, 53 Haw. at 202-03 , 491 P.2d at 548 , that a circuit court's failure to comply with the oral hearing requirement of HRCP Rule 56(c) is "harmful error per se. " In Wilder v. Tanouye, 7 Haw.App. 247 , 753 P.2d 816 (1988), the ICA addressed an appeal alleging that the circuit court had erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant without providing him an oral hearing on the appellees' MSJ. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilder v. Tanouye
green
2 sentences2005Moreover, based on an amendment of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai'i (RCCH) Rule 8 (2000), [3] the ICA has established an exception to the bright line rule set forth in Jensen, 53 Haw. at 202-03 , 491 P.2d at 548 , that a circuit court's failure to comply with the oral hearing requirement of HRCP Rule 56(c) is "harmful error per se. " In Wilder v. Tanouye, 7 Haw.App. 247 , 753 P.2d 816 (1988), the ICA addressed an appeal alleging that the circuit court had erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant without providing him an oral hearing on the appellees' MSJ. 2005Moreover, based on an amendment of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai'i (RCCH) Rule 8 (2000), [3] the ICA has established an exception to the bright line rule set forth in Jensen, 53 Haw. at 202-03 , 491 P.2d at 548 , that a circuit court's failure to comply with the oral hearing requirement of HRCP Rule 56(c) is "harmful error per se. " In Wilder v. Tanouye, 7 Haw.App. 247 , 753 P.2d 816 (1988), the ICA addressed an appeal alleging that the circuit court had erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant without providing him an oral hearing on the appellees' MSJ. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miller v. Manuel
green
2 sentences2002Oral evidence is allowed on a motion for summary judgment under HRCP Rule 43(e) (1990). 2 , 3 See Miller v. Manuel, 9 Haw.App. 56 , 65 n. 10, 828 P.2d 286 , 292 n. 10 (1991), cert. denied, 72 Haw. 618 , 841 P.2d 1075 (1992). 2002Oral evidence is allowed on a motion for summary judgment under HRCP Rule 43(e) (1990). 2 , 3 See Miller v. Manuel, 9 Haw.App. 56 , 65 n. 10, 828 P.2d 286 , 292 n. 10 (1991), cert. denied, 72 Haw. 618 , 841 P.2d 1075 (1992). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Clarke v. Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1969Although movant did not comply with the literal requirement of the rule, we think that he complied substantially with the notice requirement of the rule as expressed in Clarke v. Civil Service Commission, 50 Haw. 169 , 434 P.2d 312 (1967). 1969Although movant did not comply with the literal requirement of the rule, we think that he complied substantially with the notice requirement of the rule as expressed in Clarke v. Civil Service Commission, 50 Haw. 169 , 434 P.2d 312 (1967). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.