unconstitutional violation (Hawaii) · Go Syfert
← Hawaii issues

unconstitutional violation in Hawaii

5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Rabagogreen
haw · 2003 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2003–2021
2 sentences

2021(Bold italics added.) In Rabago, a majority of the supreme court held that HRS § 707-733.5(2) "violates the rule adopted by this court in Arceo" and struck down the statute "as an unconstitutional violation of a defendant's constitutional right to due process of law." 103 Hawai#i at 238, 81 P.3d at 1153 .

2003Majority at 238-239, 254-255, 81 P.3d at 1153-1154, 1169-1170 .

12

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Nakamoto v. Fasi green
haw · 1981
1 sentence

2015Id.

12015–2015
People v. Canister green
colo · 2005
2 sentences

2009Canister, 110 P.3d at 381 .

2009Canister, 110 P.3d at 381 .

12009–2009
Ring v. Arizona green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2009In Canister , the governor of Colorado called a special legislative session to consider legislation that would amend Colorado's capital punishment sentencing procedure to conform with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which concluded that a capital sentencing statute similar to Colorado's was an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

2009In Canister , the governor of Colorado called a special legislative session to consider legislation that would amend Colorado's capital punishment sentencing procedure to conform with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which concluded that a capital sentencing statute similar to Colorado's was an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

12009–2009
Territory of Hawaii v. Tam green
haw · 1942
1 sentence

1984HRS § 1-23; Territory v. Tam, supra; 16 Am.

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

TX 58 (1909–2022) IL 49 (1889–2022) CA 46 (1946–2025) FL 36 (1974–2026) OH 28 (1979–2022) WA 23 (1965–2025) MA 23 (1982–2023) AZ 20 (1989–2021) NY 20 (1953–2025) LA 20 (1971–2019) PA 20 (1911–2022) NC 16 (1979–2023) KS 16 (1993–2024) GA 15 (1885–2025) WI 14 (1975–2019) OK 14 (1973–2020) MI 13 (1980–2023) SC 13 (1986–2021) AL 13 (1906–2015) TN 13 (1985–2022) CO 10 (1964–2022) IN 10 (1980–2018) MD 9 (1967–2022) CT 8 (1981–2021) MT 8 (1980–2023) NM 7 (1970–2017) KY 7 (2000–2025) SD 7 (1966–2001) MO 6 (1904–2015) NJ 6 (1959–2013) ME 6 (1983–2018) UT 5 (1993–2014) HI 5 (1984–2021) IA 5 (1900–2018) MN 5 (1974–2019) WV 5 (1983–2016) DC 4 (2006–2020) OR 4 (1973–2010) NE 4 (1983–1991) ID 3 (1980–1991) NV 3 (1993–2019) AR 3 (1975–2011) ND 3 (1982–2016) NH 2 (2018–2023) VA 2 (2017–2017) VT 2 (1992–2026) WY 2 (1989–1998)

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