Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kahaikupuna v. State

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 2006No. 26850Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

LEVINSON, J.

The majority appears to conclude that Pacific Meat Co. v. Otagaki, 47 Haw. 652, 655 n. 4, 394 P.2d 618, 620 n. 4 (1964), contemplates only two sets of circumstances in which a plaintiff has standing to test a criminal statute through a declaratory action: (1) where the statute “affects a continuing course of business” and (2) where the defendants in the declaratory action have “refused to bring criminal proceedings.” See id., 47 Haw. at 654, 656, 394 P.2d at 620; majority opinion at 236, 124 P.3d at 981. I respectfully disagree with the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Dombrowski v. PfisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. BarwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Zeitlin v. ArneberghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API