Freitas v. Administrative Director of the Courts
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We hold that (1) Petitioner-appellant Darcy Freitas (Freitas) may not assert a right of public access to the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) on behalf of an anonymous woman who refused to comply with the request that she sign in and provide identification before being permitted entry, (2) because ADLRO hearings are quasi-judicial administrative hearings, due process requires that the hearings be public, and (3) Freitas was entitled to a hearing on his objections to the ADLRO sign-in and identification procedure limiting public access…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of RiversideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial RelationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. ReedSupreme Court of Kansas · 2015
- Freitas v. Administrative Director of the CourtsHawaii Supreme Court · 2005
- Slupecki v. Administrative Director of the CourtsHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. BeltranHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.