notable exception in Hawaii

5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
TSA International Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp.green haw · 1999 · cited in 3 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2010–2022 2 sentences 2022TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai#i 243, 263, 990 P.2d 713, 733 (1999) (cleaned up). 2022TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai#i 243, 263, 990 P.2d 713, 733 (1999) (cleaned up).	3	3
DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Propertiesgreen haw · 2006 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010TSA Int’l, Ltd., 92 Hawai'i at 263 , 990 P.2d at 733 (citations omitted); see also DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Properties, 110 Hawai'i 217, 219 , 131 P.3d 500, 502 (2006); Ranger Ins. 2010TSA Int’l, Ltd., 92 Hawai'i at 263 , 990 P.2d at 733 (citations omitted); see also DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Properties, 110 Hawai'i 217, 219 , 131 P.3d 500, 502 (2006); Ranger Ins.	1	1
Leleux v. United Statesgreen ca5 · 1999 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Robert C. Guccione v. United Statesgreen ca2 · 1988 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Robert C. Guccione v. United Statesgreen ca2 · 1989 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Vicki Westcott, Administratrix of the Estate of Arden Westcott, Deceased v. City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporationgreen ca8 · 1990 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Mrs. Verdie Mae Franklin Verdie Mae Franklin, Administratrix of the Estate of Lonnie B. Franklin v. United Statesgreen ca10 · 1993 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Ryan v. United Statesgreen ilnd · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	1
Forbes v. Hawaii Culinary Corp.green hawapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997). 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997).	1	1
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc.green haw · 1978 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997). 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997).	1	1
Lee v. Aiugreen haw · 1997 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997). 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
Mcneily v. United States green ca5 · 1993 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that "causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct `essential' to the plaintiff's claim can fairly be read to `arise out of' conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action," i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a "plaintiff cannot avoid the reach" of the intentional tort exception "by framing his [or her] complaint 2002See, e.g., Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that “causes of action distinct from those excepted under [the intentional tort exception] are nevertheless deemed to be barred when the underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’ to the plaintiffs claim can fairly be read to ‘arise out of conduct that would establish an excepted cause of action,” i.e., an intentional tort (citation omitted)); McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a “plaintiff cannot avoid the reach” of the intentional tort exception “by framing his [or her] complaint in	1	2002–2002
S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club green haw · 1994 2 sentences 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997). 1999Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 31-32 , 936 P.2d 655, 667-68 (1997) (citation omitted); S. Utsunomiya, 76 Hawai'i at 399 n. 3, 879 P.2d at 504 n. 3; Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 618 , 575 P.2d 869, 878 (1978); see also Forbes v. Hawai'i Culinary Corp., 85 Hawai'i 501 , 946 P.2d 609 (App.1997).	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

HI § Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 19 (1976–2024) NY 17 (1955–2014) OH 16 (1905–2026) FL 15 (1973–2015) TX 13 (1945–2026) IL 13 (1979–2024) IN 12 (1885–2020) OR 10 (1962–2024) NJ 9 (1976–2010) AR 9 (1999–2022) GA 7 (1931–1994) PA 6 (1965–2024) SC 6 (1939–2020) MD 6 (1959–2020) HI 5 (1999–2022) MN 5 (1902–2026) TN 5 (1997–2013) KS 5 (1903–2025) MI 5 (2006–2023) CT 4 (1972–2023) MO 4 (1987–2009) LA 4 (1953–2018) WA 3 (2001–2025) DC 3 (1997–2020) WV 3 (1974–2022) CO 3 (1963–2017) AK 3 (1996–2015) ID 2 (1989–2006) AZ 2 (1971–2013) SD 2 (1983–2024) KY 2 (2011–2016) OK 2 (1913–1953) NM 2 (1982–2003) WI 2 (1959–2008) AL 2 (2000–2001) NE 2 (1981–2018) IA 2 (1968–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check