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 1992–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Younggreen2 sentences2004Plaintiff asserts that in Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, this court adopted the rule in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which, in recognizing an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, allowed state officials to be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1993). 1992The Green-well exception has its genesis in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 *609 (1908), which first held that the eleventh amendment does not bar a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional a state official’s actions. | 1 | 2 |
Office of Hawai'ian Affairs v. Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2006The statute also expressly vests jurisdiction for those claims in the circuit courts of the state. *133 The State's consent to being sued under HRS § 661-1, however, "does not extend consent to suits in federal courts." Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Dep't of Educ., 951 F.Supp. 1484, 1491 (D.Haw.1996); see also Price v. Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 958 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]hat the State has consented to being sued in its own courts . . . does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity."). 2006The State’s consent to being sued under HRS § 661-1, however, “does not extend consent to suits in federal courts.” Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Dep’t of Educ., 951 F.Supp. 1484, 1491 (D.Haw.1996); see also Price v. Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 958 (9th Cir.1990) (“[T]hat the State has consented to being sued in its own courts ... does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. State Of Hawaiigreen2 sentences2006The statute also expressly vests jurisdiction for those claims in the circuit courts of the state. *133 The State's consent to being sued under HRS § 661-1, however, "does not extend consent to suits in federal courts." Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Dep't of Educ., 951 F.Supp. 1484, 1491 (D.Haw.1996); see also Price v. Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 958 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]hat the State has consented to being sued in its own courts . . . does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity."). 2006The State’s consent to being sued under HRS § 661-1, however, “does not extend consent to suits in federal courts.” Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Dep’t of Educ., 951 F.Supp. 1484, 1491 (D.Haw.1996); see also Price v. Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 958 (9th Cir.1990) (“[T]hat the State has consented to being sued in its own courts ... does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kalima v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Kalima v. State, 111 Hawai`i 84, 101, 137 P.3d 990, 1007 (2006), this court echoed the U.S. Supreme Court's language where it held that "a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal and must be strictly construed." A close inspection of the federal RSA and the Hawai`i RSA reveals nothing in either statute that would be sufficient to strip the State of its Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims made pursuant to the state statute. 2006In Kalima v. State, 111 Hawai'i 84, 101 , 137 P.3d 990, 1007 (2006), this court echoed the U.S. Supreme Court’s language where it held that “a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal and must be strictly construed.” A close inspection of the federal RSA and the Hawaii RSA reveals nothing in either statute that would be sufficient to strip the State of its Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims made pursuant to the state statute. | 1 | 1 |
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlonred2 sentences2006See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 234 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 (holding that state may waive sovereign immunity "by a state statute or constitutional provision" if the provision explicitly specifies state's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court). 2006See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 234 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 (holding that state may waive sovereign immunity "by a state statute or constitutional provision" if the provision explicitly specifies state's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court). | 1 | 1 |
Pele Defense Fund v. Patygreen2 sentences2004Plaintiff asserts that in Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, this court adopted the rule in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which, in recognizing an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, allowed state officials to be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1993). 2004Plaintiff asserts that in Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, this court adopted the rule in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which, in recognizing an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, allowed state officials to be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. 73 Haw. 578, 609-10 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1266 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Servicesgreen2 sentences2002See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar claims against a state brought under title II of the ADA); Doe v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 148 F.Supp.2d 462, 485, 489 (D.N.J.2001) (holding that Congress "exceeded its constitutional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it purported to abrogate State sovereign immunity") and cases cited therein. 2002See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar claims against a state brought under title II of the ADA); Doe v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 148 F.Supp.2d 462, 485, 489 (D.N.J.2001) (holding that Congress "exceeded its constitutional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it purported to abrogate State sovereign immunity") and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 779154green2 sentences2002See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar claims against a state brought under title II of the ADA); Doe v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 148 F.Supp.2d 462, 485, 489 (D.N.J.2001) (holding that Congress "exceeded its constitutional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it purported to abrogate State sovereign immunity") and cases cited therein. 2002See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar claims against a state brought under title II of the ADA); Doe v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 148 F.Supp.2d 462, 485, 489 (D.N.J.2001) (holding that Congress "exceeded its constitutional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it purported to abrogate State sovereign immunity") and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
W. H. Greenwell, Ltd. v. Department of Land & Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences1992See Greenwell, 50 Haw. at 209 , 436 P.2d at 528 . 1992See Greenwell, 50 Haw. at 209 , 436 P.2d at 528 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
green
1 sentence2025When 3 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Congress passed § 1983, it “[did not intend] to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity and so to alter the federal– state balance . . . [.]” Will, 491 U.S. at 66 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 287-88, 117 S.Ct. 2028 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
green
2 sentences2006That the State may waive its sovereign immunity in its own courts while still retaining its Eleventh Amendment immunity reflects the important principle that "[a] State's constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued." Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99 , 104 S.Ct. 900 (emphases in original). 2006That the State may waive its sovereign immunity in its own courts while still retaining its Eleventh Amendment immunity reflects the important principle that "[a] State's constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued." Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99 , 104 S.Ct. 900 (emphases in original). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.