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.
5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amantiad v. Odumgreen2 sentences2026See Amantiad, 90 Hawai#i at 158 n.7, 977 P.2d at 166 n.7. 4/ The Fullard-Leo Parties argue that during the settlement hearing, the Circuit Court stated that it would retain such jurisdiction, and the parties agreed in the Dismissal that the Circuit Court "retains jurisdiction with respect to enforcement of the Settlement and as otherwise stated in the Settlement." We note, however, that the Dismissal was filed under HRCP Rules 41(a)(1)(B) and 41.1 without order of the Circuit Court. 2026See Amantiad, 90 Hawai#i at 158 n.7, 977 P.2d at 166 n.7. 4/ The Fullard-Leo Parties argue that during the settlement hearing, the Circuit Court stated that it would retain such jurisdiction, and the parties agreed in the Dismissal that the Circuit Court "retains jurisdiction with respect to enforcement of the Settlement and as otherwise stated in the Settlement." We note, however, that the Dismissal was filed under HRCP Rules 41(a)(1)(B) and 41.1 without order of the Circuit Court. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laugreen1 sentence2011"When interpreting rules promulgated by the court, principles of statutory construction apply." State v. Lau, 78 Hawai`i 54, 58, 890 P.2d 291, 295 (1995) (citation omitted). [16] The majority contends it is "not uncommon" for the terms, husband and wife, to describe a divorced couple, citing a Hawai`i appellate decision. | 1 | 1 |
Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Richgreen1 sentence2007Likewise, in Automobile Underwriters, the Indiana Supreme Court indicated that, when the plaintiff elects to proceed with the fraud action, he or she recognizes that the settlement is a bar to the original action and that it is incumbent on him to allege and prove not only that the settlement was procured by fraud and to his damage, but also that he had a good *1038 cause of action against the original tort feasor at the time of the settlement. 53 N.E.2d at 777 (emphases added). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Protection of the Property of Chowgreen2 sentences2005Moreover, in Chore, the plaintiffs’ attorney “was discharged prior to the final settlement of the claim.” 3 Haw.App. at 583, 656 P.2d at 110 . 2005Moreover, in Chore, the plaintiffs’ attorney “was discharged prior to the final settlement of the claim.” 3 Haw.App. at 583, 656 P.2d at 110 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.green2 sentences1999Co., 326 N.C. 387 , 390 S.E.2d 150, 154 (1990) (holding that "the insurer’s duty to defend continues until its coverage limits have been exhausted in the settlement of a claim or claims against the insured or until judgment against the insured is reached”); Farmers Ins. 1999Co., 326 N.C. 387 , 390 S.E.2d 150, 154 (1990) (holding that "the insurer’s duty to defend continues until its coverage limits have been exhausted in the settlement of a claim or claims against the insured or until judgment against the insured is reached”); Farmers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington v. Romasgreen2 sentences1999Co. of Washington v. Romas, 88 Wash.App. 801 , 947 P.2d 754, 758 (1997), review denied, 135 Wash.2d 1007 , 959 P.2d 125 (1998) (noting that the "avoidance of the duty to defend depends on whether a judgment or settlement has been reached with the injured party or the permission of the insured has been obtained to forego the duty to defend.”). 1999Co. of Washington v. Romas, 88 Wash.App. 801 , 947 P.2d 754, 758 (1997), review denied, 135 Wash.2d 1007 , 959 P.2d 125 (1998) (noting that the "avoidance of the duty to defend depends on whether a judgment or settlement has been reached with the injured party or the permission of the insured has been obtained to forego the duty to defend.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.