Ohio rule in Hawaii

2019See Moreno v. Superior Court , 146 Cal.Rptr. 35 , 36 (App. 1978) ("The statute makes it clear that a criminal defendant has a right to a hearing before trial to determine the validity of a search and seizure; it is not a matter of judicial discretion."). 9 Similar to Ohio's rule, HRPP Rule 12(e) "does not vest the trial court with any discretion as to when [motions to suppress] are to be determined." Litten , 884 N.E.2d at 658 .

1999Like the Ohio rule, HRE Rule 802.1 requires, as a prerequisite to admission of any prior statement by a witness, that the witness who made the prior statement "testify at trial.” 22 .The appellate court in State v. Woods, 48 Ohio App.3d 1 , 548 N.E.2d 954, 958 , cause dismissed, 38 Ohio St.3d 715 , 533 N.E.2d 783 (1988), compared the “past recollection recorded” and "present recollection refreshed” exceptions and determined that the grand jury testimony of Meister, who had previously been incarcerated with Woods, the defendant, could not be elicited under the present recollection refreshed exc

1999Like the Ohio rule, HRE Rule 802.1 requires, as a prerequisite to admission of any prior statement by a witness, that the witness who made the prior statement "testify at trial.” 22 .The appellate court in State v. Woods, 48 Ohio App.3d 1 , 548 N.E.2d 954, 958 , cause dismissed, 38 Ohio St.3d 715 , 533 N.E.2d 783 (1988), compared the “past recollection recorded” and "present recollection refreshed” exceptions and determined that the grand jury testimony of Meister, who had previously been incarcerated with Woods, the defendant, could not be elicited under the present recollection refreshed exc

1999Like the Ohio rule, HRE Rule 802.1 requires, as a prerequisite to admission of any prior statement by a witness, that the witness who made the prior statement "testify at trial.” 22 .The appellate court in State v. Woods, 48 Ohio App.3d 1 , 548 N.E.2d 954, 958 , cause dismissed, 38 Ohio St.3d 715 , 533 N.E.2d 783 (1988), compared the “past recollection recorded” and "present recollection refreshed” exceptions and determined that the grand jury testimony of Meister, who had previously been incarcerated with Woods, the defendant, could not be elicited under the present recollection refreshed exc

1999Like the Ohio rule, HRE Rule 802.1 requires, as a prerequisite to admission of any prior statement by a witness, that the witness who made the prior statement "testify at trial.” 22 .The appellate court in State v. Woods, 48 Ohio App.3d 1 , 548 N.E.2d 954, 958 , cause dismissed, 38 Ohio St.3d 715 , 533 N.E.2d 783 (1988), compared the “past recollection recorded” and "present recollection refreshed” exceptions and determined that the grand jury testimony of Meister, who had previously been incarcerated with Woods, the defendant, could not be elicited under the present recollection refreshed exc

1998Id. at 431 , 79 S.Ct. 1257 .

1998Id. at 431 , 79 S.Ct. 1257 .

1975To the extent that its business may be directly affected by transactions occurring here it enjoys benefits from the laws of this State, and it has undoubtedly benefited, to a degree, from the protection which our law has given to the marketing of hot water heaters containing its valves.” 22 Ill. 2d at 441-442 . 176 N.E.2d at 766 .

1975To the extent that its business may be directly affected by transactions occurring here it enjoys benefits from the laws of this State, and it has undoubtedly benefited, to a degree, from the protection which our law has given to the marketing of hot water heaters containing its valves.” 22 Ill. 2d at 441-442 . 176 N.E.2d at 766 .

1964Walton v. Hermann, 63 Ohio 440 , 59 N.E. 104 , and Altschul v. City of Springfield, 48 Ohio App. 356 , 193 N.E. 788 , holding that a statute providing for award to the “lowest and best bidder” confers discretion) : McDonald v. Price, 45 Utah 464 , 146 Pac. 550, 552 (“highest responsible bidder” means “the bidder who will pay the highest amount of rent or render the greatest amount of service under the terms and conditions proposed”) ; Donna Independent School Dist. v. First State Bank, 227 S.W. 974 (Tex. Civ.

1964Walton v. Hermann, 63 Ohio 440 , 59 N.E. 104 , and Altschul v. City of Springfield, 48 Ohio App. 356 , 193 N.E. 788 , holding that a statute providing for award to the "lowest and best bidder" confers discretion); McDonald v. Price, 45 Utah 464 , 146 Pac. 550, 552 ("highest responsible bidder" means "the bidder who will pay the highest amount of rent or render the greatest amount of service under the terms and conditions proposed"); Donna Independent School Dist. v. First State Bank, 227 S.W. 974 (Tex. Civ.

1964Walton v. Hermann, 63 Ohio 440 , 59 N.E. 104 , and Altschul v. City of Springfield, 48 Ohio App. 356 , 193 N.E. 788 , holding that a statute providing for award to the “lowest and best bidder” confers discretion) : McDonald v. Price, 45 Utah 464 , 146 Pac. 550, 552 (“highest responsible bidder” means “the bidder who will pay the highest amount of rent or render the greatest amount of service under the terms and conditions proposed”) ; Donna Independent School Dist. v. First State Bank, 227 S.W. 974 (Tex. Civ.

1964Walton v. Hermann, 63 Ohio 440 , 59 N.E. 104 , and Altschul v. City of Springfield, 48 Ohio App. 356 , 193 N.E. 788 , holding that a statute providing for award to the “lowest and best bidder” confers discretion) : McDonald v. Price, 45 Utah 464 , 146 Pac. 550, 552 (“highest responsible bidder” means “the bidder who will pay the highest amount of rent or render the greatest amount of service under the terms and conditions proposed”) ; Donna Independent School Dist. v. First State Bank, 227 S.W. 974 (Tex. Civ.

1964Co. v. Linzell, 101 Ohio App. 219 , 137 N.E.2d 427 (an allegation that relator had prequalified and was the lowest competent and responsible bidder was not sufficient, and allegation that relator was “the lowest and best bidder” was essential, where that was the statutory language; as to Ohio rule see further State ex rel.

1964Co. v. Linzell, 101 Ohio App. 219 , 137 N.E.2d 427 (an allegation that relator had prequalified and was the lowest competent and responsible bidder was not sufficient, and allegation that relator was “the lowest and best bidder” was essential, where that was the statutory language; as to Ohio rule see further State ex rel.