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 1962–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arenared2 sentences2015See 46 Haw. at 332 , 379 P.2d at 605 (“[A]n operator of a motor vehicle cannot arbitrarily rely upon the right of way gained as a result of excessive speed or by other negligent act or violation of the law.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). 2015See 46 Haw. at 332 , 379 P.2d at 605 (“[A]n operator of a motor vehicle cannot arbitrarily rely upon the right of way gained as a result of excessive speed or by other negligent act or violation of the law.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ferreiragreen2 sentences2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. 2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Villezagreen2 sentences2000Id.; State v. Villeza, 72 Haw. 327, 333 , 817 P.2d 1054, 1057 (1991) ("On appeal, our standard of review for jury instructions is whether the instructions, when considered as a whole, are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading."). 10 .The trial court gave this instruction with the agreement of the Tanakas, and they do not cite it as error on appeal. 11 . 2000Id.; State v. Villeza, 72 Haw. 327, 333 , 817 P.2d 1054, 1057 (1991) ("On appeal, our standard of review for jury instructions is whether the instructions, when considered as a whole, are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading."). 10 .The trial court gave this instruction with the agreement of the Tanakas, and they do not cite it as error on appeal. 11 . | 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. Kupau
green
1 sentence2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Kupau
green
2 sentences2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. 2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. KAPAU
green
1 sentence2000RELEVANT PRECEDENT In State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw.App. 1, 4-5 , 791 P.2d 407, 409 (1990), this court concluded that “[i]n cases involving one or more included offenses, [the] statutes mandate the giving of included offense instructions over both the prosecution’s and defendant’s objection.” In State v. Kupau, 10 Haw.App. 503 , 879 P.2d 559 , aff'd, 76 Hawai'i 387 , 879 P.2d 492 (1994), the State did not request, Kupau did not object to, and the court did not give an included offense instruction. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Arceo
green
2 sentences2000Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 29 , 928 P.2d at 871 . 12 . 2000Arceo, 84 Hawai'i at 29 , 928 P.2d at 871 . 12 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Horne
green
2 sentences1975In Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Horne, 65 N.M. 440 , 338 P.2d 1067 (1959), the plaintiff requested and the trial court gave an instruction stating the presumption of ordinary care in favor of a decedent (to which the presumption in favor of amnesia victims is analogous), notwithstanding the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony which indicated the deceased’s lack of due care. 1975In Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Horne, 65 N.M. 440 , 338 P.2d 1067 (1959), the plaintiff requested and the trial court gave an instruction stating the presumption of ordinary care in favor of a decedent (to which the presumption in favor of amnesia victims is analogous), notwithstanding the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony which indicated the deceased’s lack of due care. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Kealoha ex rel. Arruda v. Tanaka
green
2 sentences1962As stated in Kealoha v. Tanaka, 42 Haw. 630, 631-632 , at the hearing on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence of misconduct of the jury and the court, the plaintiffs adduced evidence showing that "after the case was submitted to the jury and the jury deliberated for about one hour and thirty minutes, the jury proceeded to Halekulani Hotel for dinner, pursuant to an arrangement made by the bailiff upon consultation with the court; that the court gave no instruction to the jury concerning its conduct during dinnertime; that neither counsel was present in the cour 1962As stated in Kealoha v. Tanaka, 42 Haw. 630, 631-632 , at the hearing on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence of misconduct of the jury and the court, the plaintiffs adduced evidence showing that "after the case was submitted to the jury and the jury deliberated for about one hour and thirty minutes, the jury proceeded to Halekulani Hotel for dinner, pursuant to an arrangement made by the bailiff upon consultation with the court; that the court gave no instruction to the jury concerning its conduct during dinnertime; that neither counsel was present in the cour | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Kealoha ex rel. Arruda v. Tanaka
neutral
2 sentences1962As stated in Kealoha v. Tanaka, 42 Haw. 630, 631-632 , at the hearing on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence of misconduct of the jury and the court, the plaintiffs adduced evidence showing that "after the case was submitted to the jury and the jury deliberated for about one hour and thirty minutes, the jury proceeded to Halekulani Hotel for dinner, pursuant to an arrangement made by the bailiff upon consultation with the court; that the court gave no instruction to the jury concerning its conduct during dinnertime; that neither counsel was present in the cour 1962As stated in Kealoha v. Tanaka, 42 Haw. 630, 631-632 , at the hearing on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence of misconduct of the jury and the court, the plaintiffs adduced evidence showing that "after the case was submitted to the jury and the jury deliberated for about one hour and thirty minutes, the jury proceeded to Halekulani Hotel for dinner, pursuant to an arrangement made by the bailiff upon consultation with the court; that the court gave no instruction to the jury concerning its conduct during dinnertime; that neither counsel was present in the cour | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.