Legal Opinion

State v. Mita

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 2010No. 29347PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

RECKTENWALD, C.J.

Wanda Ruriko Mita was charged with Animal Nuisance in violation of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 7-2.3 (1990 & Supp. No. 6, 2-05), which provides that “[i]t is unlawful to be the owner of an animal, farm animal, or poultry engaged in animal nuisance as defined in section 7-2.2[.]” Mita was originally issued a citation that indicated that she committed this offense by owning, *386harboring, or keeping two dogs that were barking. Prior to the start of trial, the State also orally charged Mita by using language that tracked the provisions of ROH §…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. State v. WellsHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State v. JendruschHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. WheelerHawaii Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. MaelegaHawaii Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. NesmithHawaii Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State v. MaharajHawaii Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. WalkerHawaii Supreme Court · 2012
  4. State v. NesmithHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. State v. DeMello.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2015

13 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