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 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2021Ct. App. Div. 1989) (“We do not believe that when the Legislature expressly stated . . . that the sanction for a violation of probation (other than for the inherent criminality of the act) would be a revocation of probation, it intended that a defendant would be subject to a new indictment for contempt in addition to the punishment for the original offense.”); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C. 1989) (“When a probationer violates a condition of his probation, the only appropriate sanction is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment 8 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Goleashgreen2 sentences2009App.3d 951, 39 Ill.Dec. 451 , 404 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 (1980) (holding that criminal contempt was a proper sanction for a violation of a term of probation where "[t]he contempt determination was a lesser sanction available to the court” and the probationer was not prejudiced by the determination); People v. Goleash, 311 Ill.App.3d 949 , 244 Ill.Dec. 598 , 726 N.E.2d 194, 200 (2000) (holding that "[wjhen a probationer violates a condition of probation, he [or she] arguably commits an act of indirect criminal contempt and could be subject to both contempt sanctions and resentencing on the convictio 2009App.3d 951, 39 Ill.Dec. 451 , 404 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 (1980) (holding that criminal contempt was a proper sanction for a violation of a term of probation where "[t]he contempt determination was a lesser sanction available to the court” and the probationer was not prejudiced by the determination); People v. Goleash, 311 Ill.App.3d 949 , 244 Ill.Dec. 598 , 726 N.E.2d 194, 200 (2000) (holding that "[wjhen a probationer violates a condition of probation, he [or she] arguably commits an act of indirect criminal contempt and could be subject to both contempt sanctions and resentencing on the convictio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Patrickgreen2 sentences2009App.3d 951, 39 Ill.Dec. 451 , 404 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 (1980) (holding that criminal contempt was a proper sanction for a violation of a term of probation where "[t]he contempt determination was a lesser sanction available to the court” and the probationer was not prejudiced by the determination); People v. Goleash, 311 Ill.App.3d 949 , 244 Ill.Dec. 598 , 726 N.E.2d 194, 200 (2000) (holding that "[wjhen a probationer violates a condition of probation, he [or she] arguably commits an act of indirect criminal contempt and could be subject to both contempt sanctions and resentencing on the convictio 2009App.3d 951, 39 Ill.Dec. 451 , 404 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 (1980) (holding that criminal contempt was a proper sanction for a violation of a term of probation where "[t]he contempt determination was a lesser sanction available to the court” and the probationer was not prejudiced by the determination); People v. Goleash, 311 Ill.App.3d 949 , 244 Ill.Dec. 598 , 726 N.E.2d 194, 200 (2000) (holding that "[wjhen a probationer violates a condition of probation, he [or she] arguably commits an act of indirect criminal contempt and could be subject to both contempt sanctions and resentencing on the convictio | 1 | 1 |
Canalez v. Bob's Appliance Service Center, Inc.green2 sentences2003Center, Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292, 300 , 972 P.2d 295, 303 (1999). 2003Center, Inc., 89 Hawai'i 292, 300 , 972 P.2d 295, 303 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Yoshitomi v. Kailua Tavern, Ltd.green1 sentence1990See Yoshitomi v. Kailua Tavern, Ltd., 39 Haw. 93 (1951); Harkins v. Ikeda, 57 Haw. 378 , 557 P.2d 788 (1976); see also Commentary on HRE Rule 615. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2009In Brown v. State, 559 P.2d 107 (Alaska 1977), the Alaska Supreme Court noted that a defendant who receives a suspended imposition of sentence and is placed on probation has two alternatives. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harkins v. Ikeda
green
2 sentences1990See Yoshitomi v. Kailua Tavern, Ltd., 39 Haw. 93 (1951); Harkins v. Ikeda, 57 Haw. 378 , 557 P.2d 788 (1976); see also Commentary on HRE Rule 615. 1990See Yoshitomi v. Kailua Tavern, Ltd., 39 Haw. 93 (1951); Harkins v. Ikeda, 57 Haw. 378 , 557 P.2d 788 (1976); see also Commentary on HRE Rule 615. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kelly v. Kosuga
green
1 sentence1978Supplying a sanction for the violation of the Act, not in terms provided and capricious in its operation, .... is avoided by treating the defense as so confined.” 358 U.S. at 520-21 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.