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 1980–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kia'i Wai O Wai'Ale'Ale v. Department of Water, County of Kaua'i.green2 sentences2025The supreme court further explained that "while plaintiffs may present extra-record evidence to identify issues with the environmental review process, an agency cannot rely on extra-record evidence as a substitute for analysis the agency 43 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER should have included in an environmental review document." Id. (some emphasis added). 2025See Kia‘i Wai, 151 Hawai‘i at 460, 517 P.3d at 743 (explaining that "an agency cannot rely on extra-record evidence as a substitute for analysis the agency should have included" in its decision or on the record). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion, Inc. (I-Care) v. Dole
green
2 sentences2022The rule allowing extra-record evidence in HEPA cases “is not a two-way street.” See Citizen Advocs. for Responsible Expansion, Inc. (I-Care) v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423 , 438 n.18 (5th Cir. 1985) (discussing NEPA). “[I]f the agency knew that it could always ‘supplement’ or ‘create’ the administrative record in the reviewing court,” then the agency “would have little incentive to prepare an adequate and reviewable administrative record, despite the clear mandate of NEPA [and HEPA] that the agency prepare the required record before deciding upon a particular course of conduct.” Id. 2022The rule allowing extra-record evidence in HEPA cases “is not a two-way street.” See Citizen Advocs. for Responsible Expansion, Inc. (I-Care) v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423 , 438 n.18 (5th Cir. 1985) (discussing NEPA). “[I]f the agency knew that it could always ‘supplement’ or ‘create’ the administrative record in the reviewing court,” then the agency “would have little incentive to prepare an adequate and reviewable administrative record, despite the clear mandate of NEPA [and HEPA] that the agency prepare the required record before deciding upon a particular course of conduct.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation
green
1 sentence1980United States, supra, and Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.
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.