Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. Tanaka

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 1996No. 17148Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWatanabe, Judge

I disagree with the conclusion of the majority, contained in Part I of the opinion, that “[u]nder rudimentary requirements of due process, Petitioner was entitled to the opportunity to rebut the statement of good cause.” Majority opinion at 136.

The record in this case indicates that Petitioner never requested the issuance of a subpoena, summoning the person who requested the continuance to appear at the hearing. There is also no indication in the transcripts of the administrative revocation hearing that the person who requested the continuance was available to testify at the hearing.

If…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kernan v. TanakaHawaii Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. ArltHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. Miller v. TanakaHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. County of Hawai'i, Department of Finance v. Civil Service CommissionHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API