Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Blair v. Inggreen2 sentences2025Caf[é] LLC[.]" HRS § 607-14 (2016) authorizes attorneys' fees "in all actions in the nature of assumpsit." "Assumpsit is a common law form of action which allows for the recovery of damages for nonperformance of a contract, either express or implied, written or verbal, as well as quasi contractual obligations." Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai‘i 327, 332, 31 P.3d 184, 189 (2001) (cleaned up). 2025See Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai‘i 327, 331, 31 P.3d 184, 188 (2001) (“[A] defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14 [(Supp. 2000)].”). | 5 | 9 |
Schulz v. Honsador, Inc.green2 sentences2008Id. at 436, 690 P.2d at 282 (citation omitted). 2001Id. at 436, 690 P.2d at 282 (citation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Ranger Insurance Co. v. Hinshawgreen2 sentences2025Co. v. Hinshaw, 103 Hawaiʻi 26, 33, 79 P.3d 119, 126 (2003). 2025Co. v. Hinshaw, 103 Hawaiʻi 26, 33, 79 P.3d 119, 126 (2003). | 2 | 3 |
Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifelgreen2 sentences2010There, a terminated attorney brought action against a law firm claiming, inter alia, breach of implied contract, and the Hawaii Supreme Court considered whether the prevailing law firm could collect attorneys’ fees under HRS § 607-14. 117 Hawaii at 121-26 , 176 P.3d at 120-25 . 2010There, a terminated attorney brought action against a law firm claiming, inter alia, breach of implied contract, and the Hawaii Supreme Court considered whether the prevailing law firm could collect attorneys’ fees under HRS § 607-14. 117 Hawaii at 121-26 , 176 P.3d at 120-25 . | 2 | 3 |
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc.green2 sentences2025Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 620 , 575 P.2d 869, 879 (1978) (“[W]here a party prevails on the disputed main issue, even though not to the extent of his original contention, he will be deemed to be the successful party for the purpose of taxing costs and attorney’s fees.”) (footnote omitted). 2025Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 620 , 575 P.2d 869, 879 (1978) (“[W]here a party prevails on the disputed main issue, even though not to the extent of his original contention, he will be deemed to be the successful party for the purpose of taxing costs and attorney’s fees.”) (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Leslie v. Estate of Tavaresgreen2 sentences2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari 2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 2 | 2 |
Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop ex rel. Petersgreen2 sentences2003In affirming its holding in Wong , this court held in Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327, 331 , 31 P.3d 184, 189 (2001), that “a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14.” 8 In Kona Enters, v. Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir.2000), the plaintiffs contended that they should not be liable for attorneys’ fees because they voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. 2003In affirming its holding in Wong , this court held in Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327, 331 , 31 P.3d 184, 189 (2001), that "a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14." [8] In Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir.2000), the plaintiffs contended that they should not be liable for attorneys' fees because they voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. | 2 | 2 |
Smothers v. Renandergreen2 sentences1998For this reason, the holding of Smothers v. Renander, 2 Haw.App. 400 , 633 P.2d 556 (1981), relied upon by the Knabusches, is distinguishable. 1998For this reason, the holding of Smothers v. Renander, 2 Haw.App. 400 , 633 P.2d 556 (1981), relied upon by the Knabusches, is distinguishable. | 1 | 3 |
Finley v. Home Insurance Co.green2 sentences2003Finley, 90 Hawaii at 39 , 975 P.2d at 1159 (declining to extend the holding in Wong to attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14). 2003Finley, 90 Hawaii at 39 , 975 P.2d at 1159 (declining to extend the holding in Wong to attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14). | 1 | 2 |
Wong v. Takeuchigreen2 sentences2003Blair , relying on Wong , also declared that “a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14.” Blair, 96 Hawai'i at 331 , 31 P.3d at 189 (citing Wong, 88 Hawai'i at 49 , 961 P.2d at 614 ). 2003Blair , relying on Wong , also declared that “a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14.” Blair, 96 Hawai'i at 331 , 31 P.3d at 189 (citing Wong, 88 Hawai'i at 49 , 961 P.2d at 614 ). | 1 | 2 |
Rodrigues v. Changreen2 sentences2026We need not address this contention because Dr. Naito makes no showing that the attorneys' fees awarded by the circuit court were in fact duplicative or excessive. (5) Dr. Naito argues the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees in excess of the twenty- five percent (25%) cap imposed by HRS § 607-14, asserting that 29 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the fees should have been capped at $78,053.50, rather than the $133,267.59 awarded. 9 Where a party prevails both on the claim and the counterclaim, "the maximum amount of § 607-14 attorne 2026We need not address this contention because Dr. Naito makes no showing that the attorneys' fees awarded by the circuit court were in fact duplicative or excessive. (5) Dr. Naito argues the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees in excess of the twenty- five percent (25%) cap imposed by HRS § 607-14, asserting that 29 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the fees should have been capped at $78,053.50, rather than the $133,267.59 awarded. 9 Where a party prevails both on the claim and the counterclaim, "the maximum amount of § 607-14 attorne | 1 | 1 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Kozma.green1 sentence2024Co. v. Kozma, 140 Hawaiʻi 494, 498, 403 P.3d 271, 275 (2017) (“A prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation of the Stategreen1 sentence2022See Kamaka, 117 Hawai#i at 126, 176 P.3d at 125 ; see Sierra Club, 120 Hawai#i at 216, 202 P.3d at 1261 ("Kamaka presents the general rule for prevailing parties, as discussed within the context of HRS § 607-14[.]"). | 1 | 1 |
Chuck Jones and MacLaren v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2010Nowhere in the opinion does the Hawaii Supreme Court indicate that attorneys’ fees are precluded under HRS § 607-14 for the woi’k done by the Goodsill attorneys and instead the documentation of that work is relied upon by the court. 7 See also Chuck Jones & Macharen, 101 Hawai'i at 502 , 71 P.3d at 453 (ICA presumed as valid the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14 where attorneys brought collection action for prior legal services; however, fee award was vacated and remanded on other grounds). 2010Nowhere in the opinion does the Hawaii Supreme Court indicate that attorneys’ fees are precluded under HRS § 607-14 for the woi’k done by the Goodsill attorneys and instead the documentation of that work is relied upon by the court. 7 See also Chuck Jones & Macharen, 101 Hawai'i at 502 , 71 P.3d at 453 (ICA presumed as valid the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14 where attorneys brought collection action for prior legal services; however, fee award was vacated and remanded on other grounds). | 1 | 1 |
Chun v. Board of Trusteesgreen1 sentence2008Sys. of State of Hawai`i, 106 Hawai`i 416, 430, 106 P.3d 339, 353 (2005). [3] (2) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Fistes attorneys' fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14. | 1 | 1 |
Employee Management Corp. v. Aloha Group, Ltd.green1 sentence2008Corp. v. Aloha Group, Ltd., 87 Hawai`i 350, 352, 956 P.2d 1282, 1284 (App. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Hawaiian Isles Enterprises Inc. v. City & County of Honolulugreen2 sentences2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari 2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 1 | 1 |
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd.green2 sentences2001For example, the holding is inapplicable to attorney’s fees under HRS § 607-14 (1993), which authorizes courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party “in all actions in the nature of assumpsit and in all actions on a promissory note or other contract in wilting that provides for an attorney’s fee.” Schefke , at 454, 32 P.3d at 98 . 2001For example, the holding is inapplicable to attorney’s fees under HRS § 607-14 (1993), which authorizes courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party “in all actions in the nature of assumpsit and in all actions on a promissory note or other contract in wilting that provides for an attorney’s fee.” Schefke , at 454, 32 P.3d at 98 . | 1 | 1 |
Weinberg v. Mauchgreen2 sentences2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled 2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled | 1 | 1 |
| Sapp v. Wonggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kona Village Realty, Inc. v. Sunstone Realty Partners, XIV, LLC
green
2 sentences2025Realty, Inc. v. Sunstone Realty Partners, XIV, LLC, 123 Hawai‘i 476, 477, 236 P.3d 456 , 457 4 Under HRS Chapter 658A attorneys' fees may be awarded (1) by an arbitrator during an arbitration proceeding if an award is allowed in civil actions involving the same claim or the parties agree to the award, or (2) by a court to a prevailing party in a contested judicial proceeding after it enters judgment on an arbitration award. 2025Realty, Inc. v. Sunstone Realty Partners, XIV, LLC, 123 Hawai‘i 476, 477, 236 P.3d 456, 457 4 Under HRS Chapter 658A attorneys' fees may be awarded (1) by an arbitrator during an arbitration proceeding if an award is allowed in civil actions involving the same claim or the parties agree to the award, or (2) by a court to a prevailing party in a contested judicial proceeding after it enters judgment on an arbitration award. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Eastman v. McGowan
green
1 sentence2024The supreme court has conclusively determined that, "[u]nder HRS § 607–14, an action in the nature of assumpsit does not need a clause in writing providing for attorneys' fees in order for attorneys' fees to be granted." Eastman v. McGowan, 86 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Hawai#i 21, 31, 946 P.3d 1317 , 1327 (1997). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Porter v. Hu
green
2 sentences2013“Assumpsit embraces quasi-contractual remedies such as unjust enriehment[.]” Porter, 116 Hawai'i at 59 , 169 P.3d at 1011 . 2013“Assumpsit embraces quasi-contractual remedies such as unjust enriehment[.]” Porter, 116 Hawai'i at 59 , 169 P.3d at 1011 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fogarty v. State
green
2 sentences2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari 2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hong v. Kong
green
2 sentences2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari 2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co.
green
1 sentence2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Fought & Co. v. Steel Engineering & Erection, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006In Fought, we held that, in light of the State's "express waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in HRS § 661-1 [("The several circuit courts of the Slate ... shall ... have original jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters[:] (1) All claims against the State founded upon ... any contract ... with the State ....")]," the State was liable for attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14, see supra note 3, "as an additional element of the prevailing party’s damages.” 87 Hawai'i at 56 , 951 P.2d at 506 . 2006In Fought, we held that, in light of the State's "express waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in HRS § 661-1 [("The several circuit courts of the Slate ... shall ... have original jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters[:] (1) All claims against the State founded upon ... any contract ... with the State ....")]," the State was liable for attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14, see supra note 3, "as an additional element of the prevailing party’s damages.” 87 Hawai'i at 56 , 951 P.2d at 506 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Helfand v. Gerson
green
1 sentence2006(Citing Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327 , 31 P.3d 184 (2001); Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Hawai'i 1, 6 , 994 P.2d 1047, 1052 (2000); Braham v. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 Haw. 583 (1913); Fogarty v. State, 5 Haw.App. 616 , 705 P.2d 72 (1985); Hong v. Kong, 5 Haw.App. 174 , 683 P.2d 833 (1984); Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1997).) *274 HGG asserts that “since a contribution claim ‘sounds in contract’ and is in the nature of assumpsit, HGG should recover its ... fees ... pursuant to [HRS] § 607-14.” HGG adds that “ ‘courts in Hawai[’]i regularly award attorneys’ fees ... against vari | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air
red
2 sentences2001In determining whether or not to enhance the lodestar amount and, if so, the amount of enhancement, trial courts must determine: (1) whether “an attorney has taken a case on a contingent basis,” Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 748 , 107 S.Ct. 3078 (2) whether “[the] attorney has been able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way,” id., and (3) whether other factors besides the risk of nonpayment also justify enhancement. 97 A court must first determine whether’ a case was taken on a contingency basis because “[i]f a client has contracted to pay the ‘lodestar’ fee ..., regardless of the ou 2001In determining whether or not to enhance the lodestar amount and, if so, the amount of enhancement, trial courts must determine: (1) whether “an attorney has taken a case on a contingent basis,” Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 748 , 107 S.Ct. 3078 (2) whether “[the] attorney has been able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way,” id., and (3) whether other factors besides the risk of nonpayment also justify enhancement. 97 A court must first determine whether’ a case was taken on a contingency basis because “[i]f a client has contracted to pay the ‘lodestar’ fee ..., regardless of the ou | 1 | 2001–2001 |
S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club
green
2 sentences2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled 2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled | 1 | 2000–2000 |
AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co. v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled 2000Shanghai argues, on the other hand, that (1) Alteka did not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees until its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for reconsideration, (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to increase the damage award because the jury intended to award Alteka no more than $1,171,949, (3) attorneys’ fees against Shanghai was properly denied because Windward, Enomoto, and Shanghai effectively constituted a single party, and Windward was the prevailing party in Civil No. 95-3483-09, and (4) even if Alteka was the prevailing party against Shanghai, it was not entitled | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| A. C. Chock, Ltd. v. Kaneshiro green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.