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.
5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2020 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. Dudoitgreen2 sentences2003Accordingly, this court has held that "the term `offense,' as employed by the [Hawai'i Penal Code (]HPC[)], refers to the commission of the crime or violation." Id. at 270 , 978 P.2d at 708 (emphasis omitted). 2003Accordingly, this court has held that "the term `offense,' as employed by the [Hawai'i Penal Code (]HPC[)], refers to the commission of the crime or violation." Id. at 270 , 978 P.2d at 708 (emphasis omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Putnamgreen2 sentences2002See State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai`i 60, 66, 8 P.3d 1224, 1230 (2000) ("This construction is confirmed by an in pari materia reading of HRS §§ 707-734 and -733(1)(b), both of which concern exposure of a person's genitals to another person."); Putnam , 93 Hawai`i at 370-71, 3 P.3d at 1247-48 (construing HRS §§ 706-667 and -625, both of which relate to sentencing); State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai`i 262, 270, 978 P.2d 700, 708 (1999) ("Construed together, HRS §§ 701-101, 701-102, 701-107, and 701-108 [which define the term `offense,'] establish that the term `offense,' as employed by the HPC, refers to the 2002See State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai'i 60, 66 , 8 P.3d 1224, 1230 (2000) ("This construction is confirmed by an in pari materia reading of HRS §§ 707-734 and —733(l)(b), both of which concern exposure of a person's genitals to another person.”); Putnam, 93 Hawai'i at 370-71 , 3 P.3d at 1247-48 (construing HRS §§ 706-667 and 625, both of which relate to sentencing); State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 270 , 978 P.2d 700, 708 (1999) ("Construed together, HRS §§ 701-101, 701-102, 701-107, and 701-108 [which define the term ‘offense,’] establish that the term ‘offense,’ as employed by the HPC, refers to the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kalamagreen2 sentences2002See State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai`i 60, 66, 8 P.3d 1224, 1230 (2000) ("This construction is confirmed by an in pari materia reading of HRS §§ 707-734 and -733(1)(b), both of which concern exposure of a person's genitals to another person."); Putnam , 93 Hawai`i at 370-71, 3 P.3d at 1247-48 (construing HRS §§ 706-667 and -625, both of which relate to sentencing); State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai`i 262, 270, 978 P.2d 700, 708 (1999) ("Construed together, HRS §§ 701-101, 701-102, 701-107, and 701-108 [which define the term `offense,'] establish that the term `offense,' as employed by the HPC, refers to the 2002See State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai'i 60, 66 , 8 P.3d 1224, 1230 (2000) ("This construction is confirmed by an in pari materia reading of HRS §§ 707-734 and —733(l)(b), both of which concern exposure of a person's genitals to another person.”); Putnam, 93 Hawai'i at 370-71 , 3 P.3d at 1247-48 (construing HRS §§ 706-667 and 625, both of which relate to sentencing); State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 270 , 978 P.2d 700, 708 (1999) ("Construed together, HRS §§ 701-101, 701-102, 701-107, and 701-108 [which define the term ‘offense,’] establish that the term ‘offense,’ as employed by the HPC, refers to the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buchgreen2 sentences1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C 1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C | 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. Gallagher.
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 481, 463 P.3d at 1138 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Yamamoto
green
1 sentence2015In State v. Yamamoto, 98 Hawai#i 208, 46 P.3d 1092 12 HRS § 701-102 was derived from Model Penal Code § 1.05. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C 1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Franks v. City and County of Honolulu
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C 1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C 1999Accordingly, the plain meaning of “offense,” as employed in HRS § 709-906(5), precludes an interpretation equating it with the term “conviction.” “[Tjhis court is ... willing to look beyond the plain, obvious, and unambiguous language of a statute, the facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a literal construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.’ ” State v. Buch, 83 Hawai'i 308, 326-27 , 926 P.2d 599, 617-18 (1996) (Levinson, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. C | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.