State v. Kane

32 Citing cases

  1. State v. Bui

    104 Haw. 462 (Haw. 2004)   Cited 30 times

    As mentioned before, Defendant also contends that HRS § 708-812(1)(a) is overbroad. This court, in State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 951 P.2d 934 (1998), explained that a defendant who raises an overbreadth claim must establish that he or she is personally affected: "The doctrine of overbreadth, although closely related to a vagueness claim, is distinct in that while a statute may be clear and precise in its terms, it may sweep so broadly that constitutionally protected conduct is included in its proscriptions."

  2. Leslie v. Estate of Tavares

    91 Haw. 394 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 76 times
    Discussing conflict of interest arising from self-interest that was adverse to fiduciary duty

    "A [n] [FOF] is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aiken v. Ocean View Investments Co., 84 Haw. 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997) (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Haw. 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994))). An FOF is also clearly erroneous when "the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding."

  3. State v. Ortiz

    91 Haw. 181 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that the denial of a public trial is considered a structural defect and on this basis vacating the conviction

    "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).

  4. Brown v. Thompson

    91 Haw. 1 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that a derelict boat was "unquestionably" property protected by due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Hawai‘i Constitution

    "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).

  5. Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates

    91 Haw. 478 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 20 times
    Remanding case to the ICA for reconsideration in light of this court's holding

    Findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.See Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, 85 Haw. 7, 12, 936 P.2d 643, 648, reconsideration denied, 85 Haw. 196, 940 P.2d 403 (1997) (citation omitted). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed."State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).

  6. State v. Medeiros

    89 Haw. 361 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 24 times
    In Medeiros, a defendant who pled guilty to a charge of unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle filed a motion to enjoin enforcement of chapter 6, article 52 of the Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu (ROCCH) (Supp.

    State v. Bowe, 77 Haw. 51, 53, 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citation omitted). State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aickin v. Ocean View Inv. Co., 84 Haw. 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997)). B. Interpretation Of A Statute Or Ordinance

  7. State v. Keawemauhili

    114 Haw. 100 (Haw. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    Statev. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 274, 921 P.2d 1170, 1175 (App. 1996) (quoting Kaneakua, 61 Haw. at 144, 597 P.2d at 594 (quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Adler, 108 Hawaii 169, 179, 118 P.3d 652, 662 (2005) (citing State v. Bui, 104 Hawai'i 462, 465, 92 P.3d 471, 474 (2004); State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 77, 951 P.2d 934, 940 (1998)). Moreover, "every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional, and a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt."

  8. Davis v. Bissen

    154 Haw. 68 (Haw. 2024)   Cited 5 times

    A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. State v. Kane, 87 Hawai‘i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998). This court reviews a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo under the right/wrong standard.

  9. Santiago v. Tanaka

    SCWC-11-0000697 (Haw. Dec. 29, 2015)

    A finding of fact is determined to be clearly erroneous when "the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding," or "despite evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction . . . that a mistake has been committed." Id. (first quoting Alejado v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 89 Hawai'i 221, 225, 971 P.2d 310, 314 (App. 1998); and then quoting State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998)). The circuit court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard.

  10. HONDA v. ERS

    108 Haw. 212 (Haw. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that plaintiff who requested and relied upon defendant's retirement estimates and informational pamphlets “was not aware at the time the [employee retirement] contract was made that he had only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates.”

    "Under this . . . standard, we examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it. . . . Thus, a[COL] is not binding upon the appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness." State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998). Troyer v. Adams, 102 Hawai'i 399, 409-10, 77 P.3d 83, 93-94 (2003) (quoting State v. Entrekin, 98 Hawai'i 221, 225, 47 P.3d 336, 340 (2002) (some brackets in original and some added)).