MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 479 (Haw. 1969). · Go Syfert
MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 479 (Haw. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Anthony v. Kualoa Ranch, Inc. (haw, 1987-04-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Anthony v. Kualoa Ranch, Inc.
Haw. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 375 , 463 P.2d 425 (1969), reh. denied 51 Haw. 479 , 463 P.2d 525 (1969), cert. denied 400 U.S. 868 (1970).
cited Cited "see, e.g." International Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Woods
Haw. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 375 , 463 P.2d 525 (1969), reh’g denied, 51 Haw. 479 , 463 P.2d 525 (1969), cert. denied, *17 400 U.S. 868 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MDG SUPPLY, INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION
v.
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS, INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION MAUI CONCRETE & AGGREGATES, INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION v. DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS, INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION
No. 4818.
Hawaii Supreme Court.
Dec 22, 1969.
51 Haw. 479
William S. Ellis, Jr., appellant pro se, and Ralph E. Gorey, attorney for appellants except Ellis, for the petition.
Abe, Kobayashi, Levinson, Marumoto, Richardson.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Per Guriam.

The petition for rehearing is denied without argument. However, since the petition indicates some misunderstanding on points not explicitly covered in the opinion filed herein, we will clarify those points. The certification by the circuit court, on remand, of the finality of the December 27, 1965, judgment, under H.R.C.P. Rule 54(b), was duly made by that court and properly before this court, thus giving this court jurisdiction over the appeal. In the exercise of our jurisdiction, we determined that the judgment, being a consent judgment, was to be given effect in accordance with its terms, and was not controlled by the general law of foreclosure. One of the terms of the judgment is that the determination of attorneys’ fees is to be made at the hearing on the confirmation of foreclosure sale, with the right reserved in Diversified to appeal from such determination. Such provision is not inconsistent with the law on foreclosure sale. See Roe v. Engstrom, 250 Ill. App. 440 (1928).