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 2001–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ditto v. McCurdygreen2 sentences2026"An order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641–1(a)," Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153, 160, 80 P.3d 974, 981 (2003), "if the order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished." Id. at 157, 80 P.3d at 978. 2026"An order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641–1(a)," Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153, 160, 80 P.3d 974, 981 (2003), "if the order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished." Id. at 157, 80 P.3d at 978. | 17 | 18 |
Hoopai v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2017While Hall, on February 26, 2013, filed an HRCP Rule 24 motion to intervene in Civil No. 12-1-0118-01, and under the collateral order doctrine, "[a]n order denying an application for intervention under HRCP Rule 24 is a final appealable order under HRS § 641-l1(a)," Hoopai_ v. Civil Service Commission, 106 Hawaii 205, 215, 103 P.3d 365, 375 (2004) (citation omitted), the circuit court never entered any written order granting or denying Appellant Hall's HRCP Rule 24 motion to intervene, because Appellant Hall withdrew his motion. 2017While Hall, on February 26, 2013, filed an HRCP Rule 24 motion to intervene in Civil No. 12-1-0118-01, and under the collateral order doctrine, "[a]n order denying an application for intervention under HRCP Rule 24 is a final appealable order under HRS § 641-l1(a)," Hoopai_ v. Civil Service Commission, 106 Hawaii 205, 215, 103 P.3d 365, 375 (2004) (citation omitted), the circuit court never entered any written order granting or denying Appellant Hall's HRCP Rule 24 motion to intervene, because Appellant Hall withdrew his motion. | 3 | 3 |
First Trust Co. of Hilo, Ltd. v. Reinhardtgreen2 sentences2019"An order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-l(a)." Ditto, 103 Hawai‘iat 160, 80 P.3d at 981 (citing First Trust Co. of Hilo Ltd. v. Reinhardt, 3 Haw. App. 589, 592, 655 P.2d 891, 893 (1982)); HRS § 641-1(a) (2016) ("Appeals shall be allowed in civil matters from all final judgments, orders, or decrees of circuit and district courts and the land court to the intermediate appellate court[.]"). 2019"An order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-l(a)." Ditto, 103 Hawai‘iat 160, 80 P.3d at 981 (citing First Trust Co. of Hilo Ltd. v. Reinhardt, 3 Haw. App. 589, 592, 655 P.2d 891, 893 (1982)); HRS § 641-1(a) (2016) ("Appeals shall be allowed in civil matters from all final judgments, orders, or decrees of circuit and district courts and the land court to the intermediate appellate court[.]"). | 2 | 2 |
Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Central Pacific Boiler & Piping, Ltd.green2 sentences2005Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Central Pacific Boiler & Piping, Ltd.., 68 Haw. 368, 369-70 , 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986). 2005Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Central Pacific Boiler & Piping, Ltd.., 68 Haw. 368, 369-70 , 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986). | 2 | 2 |
Baehr v. Miikegreen2 sentences2005An order denying an application for intervention as of right under HRCP Rule 24(a)(2) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-l(a), 17 Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai'i 341, 343-45 , 910 P.2d 112, 114-16 (1996), and is reviewable under the right/wrong standard, Kim v. H.V. 2005An order denying an application for intervention as of right under HRCP Rule 24(a)(2) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-l(a), 17 Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai'i 341, 343-45 , 910 P.2d 112, 114-16 (1996), and is reviewable under the right/wrong standard, Kim v. H.V. | 2 | 2 |
Bailey v. Duvauchelle.green1 sentence2016Absent an underlying appealable final judgment, the circuit court's rulings on . .. purported [post-judgment motions such as an HRCP] Rule 60(b) motion are interlocutory and not appealable until entry of such a judgment." Bailey v. DuVauchelle, 135 Hawai‘i 482, 491, 353 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2015) ("{Ijn sum, relief under HRCP Rule 60(b) requires an underlying judgment that comports with the principles of finality set forth in Jenkins. | 1 | 1 |
Cho v. Stategreen2 sentences2014With respect to the finality requirement for an appeal from a final order under HRS § 641-l(a), “an order is not final if the rights of a party involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for further action." Cho v. State, 115 Hawai‘i 373, 383, 168 P.3d 17, 27 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014Where, as here, the trial court has not yet entered a final judgment, the trial court retains the matter for possible further action and "the trial court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders." id. "[A] motion for reconsideration pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b), is authorized only in situations involving final judgments." Id. at 382, 168 P.3d at 26 (internal quotation marks NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wrightgreen2 sentences2011First, the bankruptcy court’s good faith settlement determination is not a final, appealable order within the meaning of HRS § 641-l(a), since it does not completely resolve all claims against all parties in the underlying action. 16 Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119 , 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994) (“an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed as premature if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b)”); see also White v. Sabatino, Civ. 2011First, the bankruptcy court’s good faith settlement determination is not a final, appealable order within the meaning of HRS § 641-l(a), since it does not completely resolve all claims against all parties in the underlying action. 16 Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119 , 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994) (“an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed as premature if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b)”); see also White v. Sabatino, Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Dosland v. Doslandgreen2 sentences2011For example, "[a]n order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP [Rule] 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-1(a)." Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai‘i 153, 160, 80 P.3d 974, 981 (2003). 15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER grounds." Dosland, 5 Haw. App. at 88, 678 P.2d at 1095. 2011For example, "[a]n order denying a motion for post-judgment relief under HRCP [Rule] 60(b) is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-1(a)." Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai‘i 153, 160, 80 P.3d 974, 981 (2003). 15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER grounds." Dosland, 5 Haw. App. at 88, 678 P.2d at 1095. | 1 | 1 |
Su Duk Kim v. H. v. Corp.green2 sentences2005Corp., 5 Haw.App. 298, 301 , 688 P.2d 1158, 1160 (1984). 2005Corp., 5 Haw.App. 298, 301 , 688 P.2d 1158, 1160 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Siangco v. Kasadategreen2 sentences2004The May 3, 2001 Order authorizing the sale of the HOVE property for $35,000 to Robert Drake pursuant to a March 14, 2001 DROA is no more appealable now than it was when on July 23, 2001, in appeal no. 24224, the Ha-wai'i Supreme Court entered an Order Dismissing Appeal of the May 3, 2001 Order on the ground that “a final judgment closing the proceeding has not been entered” and “the May 3, 2001 order approving the sale of real property, ... is an interlocutory order that was not certified for interlocutory appeal[.]” In circuit court civil cases, certain collateral orders defined in Siangco v. 2004The May 3, 2001 Order authorizing the sale of the HOVE property for $35,000 to Robert Drake pursuant to a March 14, 2001 DROA is no more appealable now than it was when on July 23, 2001, in appeal no. 24224, the Ha-wai'i Supreme Court entered an Order Dismissing Appeal of the May 3, 2001 Order on the ground that “a final judgment closing the proceeding has not been entered” and “the May 3, 2001 order approving the sale of real property, ... is an interlocutory order that was not certified for interlocutory appeal[.]” In circuit court civil cases, certain collateral orders defined in Siangco v. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Hall
green
2 sentences2014"A post-judgment order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-l(a) if the order finally determines the post-judgment proceeding." Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai‘i 105,.111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App. 2001) (citation omitted), affirmed in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, Hall v. Hall, 95 Hawai‘i 318, 22 P.38d 965 (2001). 2011We held that the order denying the first motion to reconsider became final when it was not appealed.*® "[A]s such, it bars consideration of a subsequent motion under Rule 60(b) HFCR, which is based on the same ** "AR post-judgment order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641- 1(a) if the order finally determines the post-judgment proceeding." Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai‘i 105, 111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App. 2001), affirmed in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, 95 Hawai‘i 318, 22 P.3d 965 (2001). | 4 | 2011–2016 |
Hall v. Hall
green
2 sentences2016In other words, "[a] post- judgment order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-1(a) if the order finally determines the post-judgment proceeding.” Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai‘i 105, 111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App. 2001) (citation omitted), affirmed in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, Hall v. Hall, 95 Hawai‘i 318, 22 P.3d 965 (2001). 2011We held that the order denying the first motion to reconsider became final when it was not appealed.*® "[A]s such, it bars consideration of a subsequent motion under Rule 60(b) HFCR, which is based on the same ** "AR post-judgment order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641- 1(a) if the order finally determines the post-judgment proceeding." Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai‘i 105, 111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App. 2001), affirmed in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, 95 Hawai‘i 318, 22 P.3d 965 (2001). | 3 | 2011–2016 |
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.