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 1999–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estatesgreen2 sentences2025The relative hardship test, which is also called "balancing the equities," applies where, as here, a "prior landowner has affirmatively violated a restrictive covenant and a subsequent purchaser is asked to bear the burden of a mandatory injunction to remove the violation." Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Ests., 91 Hawaiʻi 478, 488, 985 P.2d 1045, 1055 (1999) (citations omitted). 2008Id. at 488, 985 P.2d at 1055 (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Peters v. Davisgreen2 sentences2008The Pelosi court also observed that in the two cases relied upon most heavily by the Sandstrom court in reaching the conclusion that the relative hardship test should not be considered when a property owner deliberately violates a restriction or intentionally “takes a chance,” Peters v. Davis, 426 Pa. 231 , 231 A.2d 748 (1967), and McDonough v. W.W. 2008The Pelosi court also observed that in the two cases relied upon most heavily by the Sandstrom court in reaching the conclusion that the relative hardship test should not be considered when a property owner deliberately violates a restriction or intentionally “takes a chance,” Peters v. Davis, 426 Pa. 231 , 231 A.2d 748 (1967), and McDonough v. W.W. | 2 | 4 |
Sandstrom v. Larsengreen2 sentences2025The relative hardship test need not be applied, however, "where a property owner deliberately and intentionally violates a valid express restriction running with the land [o]r intentionally takes a chance." Sandstrom v. Larsen, 59 Haw. 491, 500 , 583 P.2d 971, 978 (1978) (cleaned up). 2025The relative hardship test need not be applied, however, "where a property owner deliberately and intentionally violates a valid express restriction running with the land [o]r intentionally takes a chance." Sandstrom v. Larsen, 59 Haw. 491, 500 , 583 P.2d 971, 978 (1978) (cleaned up). | 2 | 3 |
Ventresca v. Ventrescagreen2 sentences1999See section III.A, supra. As noted previously, however, the relative hardship test will not be applied “where a property owner ‘deliberately and intentionally violates a valid express restriction running with the land or intentionally “takes a chance.” ’ ” Sandstrom, 59 Haw. at 500 , 583 P.2d at 978 (emphasis in original) (quoting Peters v. Davis, 426 Pa. 231 , 231 A.2d 748, 752 (1967) (citing, inter alia, Ventresca v. Ventresca, 182 Pa.Super. 248 , 126 A.2d 515 (1956))). 1999See section III.A, supra. As noted previously, however, the relative hardship test will not be applied “where a property owner ‘deliberately and intentionally violates a valid express restriction running with the land or intentionally “takes a chance.” ’ ” Sandstrom, 59 Haw. at 500 , 583 P.2d at 978 (emphasis in original) (quoting Peters v. Davis, 426 Pa. 231 , 231 A.2d 748, 752 (1967) (citing, inter alia, Ventresca v. Ventresca, 182 Pa.Super. 248 , 126 A.2d 515 (1956))). | 1 | 1 |
Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc.green2 sentences1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks 1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Harksen v. Peskagreen1 sentence1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Swaggerty v. Petersengreen2 sentences1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks 1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Horvath v. Gladstonegreen2 sentences1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks 1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Hunsicker v. Katzgreen2 sentences1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks 1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Hollis v. Garwall, Inc.green1 sentence1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
Lange v. Scofieldgreen1 sentence1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonough v. WW Snow Construction Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Snow Construction Company, 131 Vt. 436 , 306 A.2d 119 (1973), mandatory injunctions were issued against the original property owners themselves for intentionally violating restrictions of which the owners had notice. 2008Snow Construction Company, 131 Vt. 436 , 306 A.2d 119 (1973), mandatory injunctions were issued against the original property owners themselves for intentionally violating restrictions of which the owners had notice. | 3 | 1999–2008 |
Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 533 , 985 P.2d at 1100 . 1999Id. at 533 , 985 P.2d at 1100 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hollis v. Garwall, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999See Nonnenmann v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 509 , 10 Ill.Dec. 714 , 368 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1977) (noting that a court will apply the relative hardship test except “where encroachment by a defendant was intentional” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Gladstone, 97 Nev. 594 , 637 P.2d 531, 533 (1981) (applying a balancing of the equities where the purchaser performed no act in violation of the restrictions); Hunsicker v. Katz, 310 Pa.Super. 213 , 456 A.2d 576, 580 (1983) (applying the relative hardship test where “the appellees’ encroachment was the result of an unintentional mistake”); Harks | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.