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 1963–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Freitasgreen1 sentence2022Nakamoto v. Kawauchi, 142 Hawai#i 259, 270 n.7 418 P.3d 600 , 611 n.7 (2018) (citing Wilson v. 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Freitas; 121 Hawai#i 120, 130, 214 P.3d 1110, 1120 (App. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. O'DANIELgreen2 sentences1988Where, as in this appeal, the defendant in a criminal case avers an instruction covering a defense he raised at trial was refused in error, the claim must be considered in the light of a rule that he “is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980) (citations omitted) (original emphasis). 1988Where, as in this appeal, the defendant in a criminal case avers an instruction covering a defense he raised at trial was refused in error, the claim must be considered in the light of a rule that he “is entitled to an instruction on every defense or theory of defense having any support in the evidence, provided such evidence would support the consideration of that issue by the jury, no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be.” State v. O’Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527-28 , 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980) (citations omitted) (original emphasis). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nakamoto v. Kawauchi.
green
1 sentence2022Nakamoto v. Kawauchi, 142 Hawai#i 259, 270 n.7 418 P.3d 600 , 611 n.7 (2018) (citing Wilson v. 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Freitas; 121 Hawai#i 120, 130, 214 P.3d 1110, 1120 (App. 2009)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. Throckmorton
green
2 sentences1977United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 , 25 L.Ed. 93 . 1977United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 , 25 L.Ed. 93 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
City & County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1967Further, in the light of the principle set forth as a guide in Territory v. Adelmeyer, 45 Haw. 144, 147-48 , 363 P.2d 979, 982 , followed in City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co., 48 Haw. 444 , 404 P.2d 373 , that with respect to evidence of value in eminent domain proceedings any evidence which will aid the jury in fixing the fair market value of the property should be considered by them, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. 7 We find that the trial court did not err with respect to plaintiff’s first and second specifications of error. 1967Further, in the light of the principle set forth as a guide in Territory v. Adelmeyer, 45 Haw. 144, 147-48 , 363 P.2d 979, 982 , followed in City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co., 48 Haw. 444 , 404 P.2d 373 , that with respect to evidence of value in eminent domain proceedings any evidence which will aid the jury in fixing the fair market value of the property should be considered by them, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. 7 We find that the trial court did not err with respect to plaintiff’s first and second specifications of error. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Territory of Hawaii v. Adelmeyer
green
2 sentences1967Further, in the light of the principle set forth as a guide in Territory v. Adelmeyer, 45 Haw. 144, 147-48 , 363 P.2d 979, 982 , followed in City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co., 48 Haw. 444 , 404 P.2d 373 , that with respect to evidence of value in eminent domain proceedings any evidence which will aid the jury in fixing the fair market value of the property should be considered by them, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. 7 We find that the trial court did not err with respect to plaintiff’s first and second specifications of error. 1967Further, in the light of the principle set forth as a guide in Territory v. Adelmeyer, 45 Haw. 144, 147-48 , 363 P.2d 979, 982 , followed in City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co., 48 Haw. 444 , 404 P.2d 373 , that with respect to evidence of value in eminent domain proceedings any evidence which will aid the jury in fixing the fair market value of the property should be considered by them, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. 7 We find that the trial court did not err with respect to plaintiff’s first and second specifications of error. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Clark v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1963Friedman v. Mandelbaum, supra, 25 N.J.Misc. 157, 51 A.2d 260 , reaffirmed the rule as stated in Hecksher v. Trotter, 48 N.J.L. 419 , 5 A. 581 , 584: "The general rule is that unliquidated damages, resulting from the violation of a contract, cannot be recovered by attachment, unless the contract affords a certain measure or standard for ascertaining the amount of the damages. * * * The standard should be a subject-matter of the contract. * * * The standard must be shown by the contract without the aid of inferences from extrinsic facts or circumstances. " (Emphasis added.) The language of Mr. J | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Friedman v. Mandelbaum
neutral
2 sentences1963Misc. 157 , 51 A.2d 260 , reaffirmed the rule as stated in Heeksher v. Trotter, 48 N.J.L. 419 , 5 Atl. 581 , 584: “The general rule is that unliquidated damages, resulting from the violation of a contract, cannot be recovered by attachment, unless the contract affords a certain measure or standard for ascertaining the amount of the damages. * * * The standard should be the subject-matter of the contract. * * * The standard must be shown by the contract without the aid of inferences from extrinsic facts or circumstances(Emphasis added.) The language of Mr. Justice Washington, of the Supreme Cou 1963Friedman v. Mandelbaum, supra, 25 N.J.Misc. 157, 51 A.2d 260 , reaffirmed the rule as stated in Hecksher v. Trotter, 48 N.J.L. 419 , 5 A. 581 , 584: "The general rule is that unliquidated damages, resulting from the violation of a contract, cannot be recovered by attachment, unless the contract affords a certain measure or standard for ascertaining the amount of the damages. * * * The standard should be a subject-matter of the contract. * * * The standard must be shown by the contract without the aid of inferences from extrinsic facts or circumstances. " (Emphasis added.) The language of Mr. J | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Heckscher v. Trotter
green
2 sentences1963Misc. 157 , 51 A.2d 260 , reaffirmed the rule as stated in Heeksher v. Trotter, 48 N.J.L. 419 , 5 Atl. 581 , 584: “The general rule is that unliquidated damages, resulting from the violation of a contract, cannot be recovered by attachment, unless the contract affords a certain measure or standard for ascertaining the amount of the damages. * * * The standard should be the subject-matter of the contract. * * * The standard must be shown by the contract without the aid of inferences from extrinsic facts or circumstances(Emphasis added.) The language of Mr. Justice Washington, of the Supreme Cou 1963Friedman v. Mandelbaum, supra, 25 N.J.Misc. 157, 51 A.2d 260 , reaffirmed the rule as stated in Hecksher v. Trotter, 48 N.J.L. 419 , 5 A. 581 , 584: "The general rule is that unliquidated damages, resulting from the violation of a contract, cannot be recovered by attachment, unless the contract affords a certain measure or standard for ascertaining the amount of the damages. * * * The standard should be a subject-matter of the contract. * * * The standard must be shown by the contract without the aid of inferences from extrinsic facts or circumstances. " (Emphasis added.) The language of Mr. J | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Henriques v. Vinhaca
green
2 sentences1963In considering Fisher v. Oonsequa, supra, the court in Clark v. Wilson, supra, had this to say: “The principle decided in that case was, that a demand arising ex contractu, the amount of which was ascertained, or which was susceptible of ascertainment by some standard, referable to the contract itself, sufficiently certain to enable the plaintiff, by affidavit, to aver it, or a jury to find it; might be the foundation of a proceeding by way of foreign attachment * * (Emphasis added.) In dissolving the attachment on a claim of damages against one who had chartered a ship for renouncing the char 1963In considering Fisher v. Oonsequa, supra, the court in Clark v. Wilson, supra, had this to say: “The principle decided in that case was, that a demand arising ex contractu, the amount of which was ascertained, or which was susceptible of ascertainment by some standard, referable to the contract itself, sufficiently certain to enable the plaintiff, by affidavit, to aver it, or a jury to find it; might be the foundation of a proceeding by way of foreign attachment * * (Emphasis added.) In dissolving the attachment on a claim of damages against one who had chartered a ship for renouncing the char | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.