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 1982–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Employment Divisiongreen2 sentences1986At the moment, there is no cause for us to think dismissals of lay teachers and staff members of church schools “over matters of religious doctrine are so frequent as to require [an] exemption [of the schools from] the unemployment [insurance program] on that account.” Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Employment Division, 298 Or. at 487 , 695 P.2d at 36 (footnote omitted). 1986At the moment, there is no cause for us to think dismissals of lay teachers and staff members of church schools “over matters of religious doctrine are so frequent as to require [an] exemption [of the schools from] the unemployment [insurance program] on that account.” Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Employment Division, 298 Or. at 487 , 695 P.2d at 36 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Dependents of Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co.green2 sentences1984The Hawaii workers’ compensation law accords to the employee a presumption that his “claim is for a covered work injury,” 5 mean *12 ing that the injury arose “out of and in the course of employment.” The statutory presumption has been liberally construed in favor of the employee and it “cast[s] a heavy burden on the employer.” Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co., Ltd., 53 Haw. 406, 409 , 495 P.2d 1164, 1166 (1972). 1984The Hawaii workers’ compensation law accords to the employee a presumption that his “claim is for a covered work injury,” 5 mean *12 ing that the injury arose “out of and in the course of employment.” The statutory presumption has been liberally construed in favor of the employee and it “cast[s] a heavy burden on the employer.” Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co., Ltd., 53 Haw. 406, 409 , 495 P.2d 1164, 1166 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc.green2 sentences1984See also Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642 , 636 P.2d 721 (1981); DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296 , 555 P.2d 855 (1976). 1984See also Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642 , 636 P.2d 721 (1981); DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296 , 555 P.2d 855 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd.
green
2 sentences1998Hence, “provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception” established in Pamar “is unnecessary.” Ross, 76 Hawai'i at 464 , 879 P.2d at 1047 . 1998Hence, “provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception” established in Pamar “is unnecessary.” Ross, 76 Hawai'i at 464 , 879 P.2d at 1047 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In re Shabazz
green
1 sentence1992In Gouveia v. Napili-Kai, Ltd., 65 Haw. 189 , 649 P.2d 1119 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 904 (1983), we had occasion to consider the Farmer exception in an instance where the retributive discharge of an employee in violation of the NLRA resulted in emotional distress and anxiety. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gouveia v. Napili-Kai, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1992In Gouveia v. Napili-Kai, Ltd., 65 Haw. 189 , 649 P.2d 1119 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 904 (1983), we had occasion to consider the Farmer exception in an instance where the retributive discharge of an employee in violation of the NLRA resulted in emotional distress and anxiety. 1992In Gouveia v. Napili-Kai, Ltd., 65 Haw. 189 , 649 P.2d 1119 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 904 (1983), we had occasion to consider the Farmer exception in an instance where the retributive discharge of an employee in violation of the NLRA resulted in emotional distress and anxiety. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
DeFries v. ASSOCIATION OF OWNERS, 999 WILDER
green
2 sentences1984See also Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642 , 636 P.2d 721 (1981); DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296 , 555 P.2d 855 (1976). 1984See also Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642 , 636 P.2d 721 (1981); DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296 , 555 P.2d 855 (1976). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lane v. Yamamoto
green
1 sentence1982App. 176 , 628 P.2d 634 (1981). 4 However, under this same theory, if the employee has immunity from suit, it follows that the employer would also be immune. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.