Kamakawiwoole v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that jury must decide whether the State impliedly invited beach users to use the U.S. Army’s adjacent, de facto public park fronting the ocean, and therefore owed a duty to warn of known or knowable dangers
• “[Operating a de facto public park partially fronting the public beach and ocean and surrounding the Army’s de facto public park fronting the public beach and ocean ...;” both de facto public parks were contiguous with the beach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hao v. Campbell Estate
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1994-03-04· cited 18×
• Rygg v. County of Maui
  D. Hawaii· 1999-12-30· cited 7×
• Collard v. United States
  D. Hawaii· 1988-07-25· cited 5×
• Lansdell v. County of Kauai
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2006-03-30· cited 5×
• Atahan v. Muramoto
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1999-09-08· cited 3×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1969-04-03· cited 149×
• Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1969-09-26· cited 39×
• Littleton v. State
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1982-12-30· cited 30×
• Kaczmarczyk v. City and County of Honolulu
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1982-12-28· cited 28×
• Norma Tarshis v. Lahaina Investment Corporation, a Hawaii Corporation, D/B/A Royal Lahaina Hotel
  Ninth Circuit· 1973-06-21· cited 26×
• McKinney v. Adams
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1914-11-06· cited 25×
• Geremia v. State
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1977-12-22· cited 17×