State v. Kotis

16 Citing cases

  1. Uyeda v. Schermer

    439 P.3d 115 (Haw. 2019)   Cited 23 times

    5 were not met and harassment as therein defined was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Schermer, citing State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 341-42, 984 P.2d 78, 100-01 (1999), also argued that while the district court could take judicial notice of the existence of documents filed in the previous cases, it could not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts in those documents. He conceded, however, that he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating the facts or issues in Case 639.

  2. Perez v. Perez

    NO. CAAP-18-0000029 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2020)

    Accordingly, we examine the court's ruling for plain error. See State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 341, 984 P.2d 78, 100 (1999) (citing Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 103(a)(1) and (d) (1993)). See also Hawai'i Family Court Rules Rule 61.

  3. Daum v. Webster

    388 P.3d 899 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)

    " HRE Rule 201(f)."A trial court's sua sponte decision to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact constitutes an exercise of its discretion," State v. Kotis , 91 Hawai‘i 319, 328–29, 984 P.2d 78, 87–88 (1999). In Kotis , the defendant argued that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of records and files of the case.

  4. Hawaii v. E.I

    116 Haw. 277 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs' expert reports were insufficient to prove damages at trial and noting that the date for supplementing those expert reports had passed

    However, inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to move for a Rule 56(0 continuance, the circuit court was not presented with an opportunity to pass on the issue. Cf. State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 340, 984 P.2d 78, 99 (1999) (holding that the defendant "had the opportunity to raise the issue [(now challenged on appeal)] . . . in the circuit court, but he did not do so. Inasmuch as he is the party alleging error, it was his burden to raise the issue, and any ambiguity in the circuit court's d i n g may therefore be attributed to him").

  5. Tamashiro v. Dept. of Human Serv

    112 Haw. 388 (Haw. 2006)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that where the agency's rule conflicted with HRS chapter 91, it exceeded the agency's authority

    See In re Wai'ola O Moloka'i, Inc., 103 Hawai'i 401, 425, 83 P.3d 664, 668 (2004) ("If an administrative rule's language is unambiguous, and its literal application is neither inconsistent with the policies of the statute the rule implements nor produces an absurd or unjust result, courts enforce the rule's plain meaning." (Citation omitted.)); see also State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 331, 984 P.2d 78, 90 (1999) ("Administrative rules, like statutes, have the force and effect of law." (Citations omitted.)).

  6. Troyer v. Adams

    102 Haw. 399 (Haw. 2003)   Cited 85 times
    Approving a settlement contribution bar and finding no due process issue when statutory provision afforded non-settling party notice and an opportunity to object

    "'Substantial evidence' . . . is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Doe, 84 Hawai'i at 46, 928 P.2d at 888 (quoting State v. Wallace, 80 Haw. 382, 391-92, 910 P.2d 695, 704-05 (1996)); see also State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999). In re Jane Doe, Born on June 16, 1994, 101 Haw. 220, 227, 65 P.3d 167, 174 (2003).

  7. Guth v. Freeland

    96 Haw. 147 (Haw. 2001)   Cited 44 times
    Holding plaintiffs who have not suffered physical injury may recover damages for emotional distress that arises from the negligent mishandling of a corpse

    Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law to be reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. Flor v. Holguin, 94 Haw. 70, 77, 9 P.3d 382, 389 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999)) (some citations omitted). Our statutory construction is guided by the following well established principles:

  8. State v. Rapoza

    95 Haw. 321 (Haw. 2001)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that attempted murder in the second degree could be charged as a continuous offense

    " HRS § 1-16 (1993). State v. Rauch, 94 Haw. 315, 322-23, 13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (ellipsis points in original). III.

  9. Flor v. Holguin

    94 Haw. 92 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the claimant, a dental hygienist, discovered that she had contracted hepatitis C

    HRS § 1-15(2) (1993). State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (citations omitted) (some ellipsis points added and some in original). III.

  10. Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co.

    93 Haw. 477 (Haw. 2000)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that when the Supreme Court construes a statute, its foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature

    " HRS § 1-16 (1993). State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Haw. 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Haw. 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Haw. 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Haw. 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998))))) (some ellipsis points and brackets added and some in original). III.