Board of Commissioners of McCandless Township v. Beho Development Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court was not required to include all statutory definitions in its instructions but, rather, “should refer only to those [definitions] having a rational basis in the evidence adduced at trial and not otherwise excludable”
• concluding that, based on HRS § 701-102(3), “the provisions of the [Code], such as HRS §§ 702-202 and -204 [ (1993) ], are applicable to HRS § 329-43.5 [ (1993) ],” a statute not part of the Code
• stating that laws in pari materia should be construed together
• stating that laws in pari materia should be construed together
• “[O]ur duty in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the legislature’s intent[,] which is obtained primarily from the language of the statute.”
• \`[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.'\ (Quoting State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai`i 60, 64, 8 P.3d 1224, 1228 (2000).)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).