scope of any privilege (Hawaii) · Go Syfert
← Hawaii issues

scope of any privilege in Hawaii

5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.green
haw · 2003 · cited in 3 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2008–2023
2 sentences

2023In Matsuura, the supreme court stated that the scope of any privilege is based on policy considerations. 102 Hawai#i at 155, 73 P.3d at 693 .

2020“The scope of any privilege is based upon policy considerations.” Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 102 Hawaiʻi 149, 155, 73 P.3d 687, 693 (2003).

23
Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifelgreen
haw · 2007 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2008–2023
2 sentences

2023In Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, the supreme court reiterated the conclusion in Matsuura that "'a party is not immune from liability for civil damages based upon that party's fraud engaged in during prior litigation proceedings .'" 113 Hawai#i 251, 269, 151 P.3d 732, 750 (2007) (quoting Matsuura, 102 Hawai#i at 162, 73 P.3d at 700 ).

2008Id. at 268, 151 P.3d at 749 (quoting Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 102 Hawai`i 149, 155, 73 P.3d 687, 693 (2003)) (some citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). [8] "In determining the award of attorneys' fees and costs and the amounts to be awarded [under HRS § 607-14.5], the court must find in writing that all or a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous and are not reasonably supported by the facts and the law in the civil action." HRS § 607-14.5(b) (emphasis added).

12
Dike v. Dikegreen
wash · 1968 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Because the lawyer-client privilege “works to suppress otherwise 30 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** relevant evidence, the limitations which restrict the scope of its operation . . . must be assiduously heeded.” Sapp, 62 Haw. at 38 , 609 P.2d at 140 . “[T]he privilege ‘must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists.’” DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 535 , 723 P.2d at 175 (quoting Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 496 (Wash. 1968)).

11
Blair v. Inggreen
haw · 2001 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See generally Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai'i 247, 263 , 21 P.3d 452, 468 (2001); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai'i 319, 325 , 966 P.2d 631, 637 (1998).

2003See generally Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai`i 247, 263, 21 P.3d 452, 468 (2001); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai`i 319, 325, 966 P.2d 631, 637 (1998).

11
Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wrightgreen
haw · 1998 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See generally Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai'i 247, 263 , 21 P.3d 452, 468 (2001); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai'i 319, 325 , 966 P.2d 631, 637 (1998).

2003See generally Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai`i 247, 263, 21 P.3d 452, 468 (2001); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai`i 319, 325, 966 P.2d 631, 637 (1998).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Sapp v. Wong green
haw · 1980
2 sentences

2020Because the lawyer-client privilege “works to suppress otherwise 30 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** relevant evidence, the limitations which restrict the scope of its operation . . . must be assiduously heeded.” Sapp, 62 Haw. at 38 , 609 P.2d at 140 . “[T]he privilege ‘must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists.’” DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 535 , 723 P.2d at 175 (quoting Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 496 (Wash. 1968)).

2020Because the lawyer-client privilege “works to suppress otherwise 30 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** relevant evidence, the limitations which restrict the scope of its operation . . . must be assiduously heeded.” Sapp, 62 Haw. at 38 , 609 P.2d at 140 . “[T]he privilege ‘must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists.’” DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 535 , 723 P.2d at 175 (quoting Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 496 (Wash. 1968)).

12020–2020
DiCenzo v. Izawa green
haw · 1986
2 sentences

2020Because the lawyer-client privilege “works to suppress otherwise 30 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** relevant evidence, the limitations which restrict the scope of its operation . . . must be assiduously heeded.” Sapp, 62 Haw. at 38 , 609 P.2d at 140 . “[T]he privilege ‘must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists.’” DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 535 , 723 P.2d at 175 (quoting Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 496 (Wash. 1968)).

2020Because the lawyer-client privilege “works to suppress otherwise 30 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** relevant evidence, the limitations which restrict the scope of its operation . . . must be assiduously heeded.” Sapp, 62 Haw. at 38 , 609 P.2d at 140 . “[T]he privilege ‘must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists.’” DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 535 , 723 P.2d at 175 (quoting Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 496 (Wash. 1968)).

12020–2020
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport green
scotus · 1918
1 sentence

1982Postal Tele *659 graph Cable Co. v. Newport, 247 U.S. 464 (1918).

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1996–2018) HI 5 (1982–2023) MA 4 (1980–2015) NY 4 (1954–2009) OH 3 (1986–1999) NC 3 (1998–2009) WA 3 (2005–2020) CO 3 (1991–1999) IL 2 (1991–2012) PA 2 (2021–2022) TX 2 (2000–2017) AR 2 (1999–2001) NE 2 (1977–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check