Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
E433353
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its authority to sell or transfer certain former crown lands, limiting the resolution’s legal effect.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4351466 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Context triple: [Apology Resolution (U.S. Public Law 103-150), citedIn, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs]
-
A.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad
Puerto Rico v. Branstad is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal courts can compel state governors to comply with interstate extradition requests under the Constitution.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
D.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
E.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Target entity description: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its authority to sell or transfer certain former crown lands, limiting the resolution’s legal effect.
-
A.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad
Puerto Rico v. Branstad is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal courts can compel state governors to comply with interstate extradition requests under the Constitution.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
D.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
E.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federal Indian and Native Hawaiian law ⓘ public lands law ⓘ |
| citation | 556 U.S. 163 ⓘ |
| clarified | that congressional apologies or symbolic resolutions do not, without clear language, alter substantive property rights ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved | Article IV Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2009 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 07-1372 ⓘ |
| holding |
the Apology Resolution has no substantive legal effect to cloud the State of Hawaii’s title to the lands at issue
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
the federal Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its authority to sell or transfer certain former crown lands NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| impact | limited the legal effect of the Apology Resolution on land title disputes in Hawaii ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
effect of the 1993 Apology Resolution on state authority over former crown lands
ⓘ
state power to sell or transfer certain former crown lands ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | Supreme Court of Hawaii NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDecision | Hawaii Supreme Court enjoined the state from selling or transferring certain ceded lands pending political settlement ⓘ |
| opinionBy | Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatedFrom | Hawaii state courts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | State of Hawaii NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
1993 Apology Resolution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Public Law 103-150 NERFINISHED ⓘ ceded lands in Hawaii ⓘ former Hawaiian crown lands ⓘ |
| respondent |
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
individual Native Hawaiian beneficiaries ⓘ |
| result | injunction against sale or transfer of ceded lands vacated ⓘ |
| state | Hawaii NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Public Law 103-150 (Apology Resolution) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| SupremeCourtDisposition | reversed ⓘ |
| termOfCourt | October Term 2008 ⓘ |
| yearArgued | 2008 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Description of subject: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its authority to sell or transfer certain former crown lands, limiting the resolution’s legal effect.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.