Legal Opinion

Taomae v. Lingle

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 2005No. 26962PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

ACOBA, J.

We conclude that articles III and XVII of the Hawai'i Constitution require that (1) a proposal to amend the constitution must be reflected in the title of the bill and (2) a proposed constitutional amendment must be read three times in each house to be validly adopted. For the reasons stated herein, we determine that House Bill 2789, House Draft 1, Senate Draft 1, 2004 Haw. Sess. L. Act 60 at 301 [hereinafter, H.B. 2789, H.D. 1, S.D. 1] violated these requirements.

I

In this original proceeding, thirty-eight 1 registered voters of the State of Hawai'i…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Ohio Ex Rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Coon v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & WrightHawaii Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Tri-S Corp. v. Western World Insurance Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Kaho'ohanohano v. StateHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Chung v. McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2007

20 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