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.
16 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Productsgreen2 sentences2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. HRCP Rule 52(c) Judgment on Partial Findings “Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)], interpretations of the rule ‘by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.’” 21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai‘i 214, 251- 52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997) (quoting Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968). 2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. HRCP Rule 52(c) Judgment on Partial Findings “Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)], interpretations of the rule ‘by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.’” 21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai‘i 214, 251- 52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997) (quoting Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968). | 9 | 9 |
Gold v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2005See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94,105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (“Where we have pat-temed a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)). 2005See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94,105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (“Where we have pat-temed a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)). | 8 | 8 |
Harada v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. HRCP Rule 52(c) Judgment on Partial Findings “Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)], interpretations of the rule ‘by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.’” 21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai‘i 214, 251- 52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997) (quoting Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968). 2025STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. HRCP Rule 52(c) Judgment on Partial Findings “Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)], interpretations of the rule ‘by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.’” 21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai‘i 214, 251- 52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997) (quoting Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968). | 3 | 3 |
Gold v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) (“Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). 2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai`i 94, 105, 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) ("Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). | 2 | 2 |
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroadgreen2 sentences2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) (“Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). 2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai`i 94, 105, 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) ("Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). | 2 | 2 |
Scott v. Norfolk Southern Corp.green2 sentences2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) (“Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). 2003See Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai`i 94, 105, 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1254 , 143 L.Ed.2d 351 (1999) ("Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eaglegreen2 sentences2002Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (1998) (citing Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai'i 86, 88 , 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997)); Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (citing Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai'i 214, 255 , 948 P.2d 1055, 1096 (1997)). 10 . 2002Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (1998) (citing Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai'i 86, 88 , 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997)); Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (citing Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai'i 214, 255 , 948 P.2d 1055, 1096 (1997)). 10 . | 1 | 1 |
Molinar v. Schweizergreen2 sentences2002Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw.App. 286 , 290 n. 6, 666 P.2d 171 , 174 n. 6; see also Molinar v. Schweizer, 95 Hawai'i 331, 336 , 22 P.3d 978, 983 (2001) (interpretation of FRCP by federal courts is persuasive authority for Hawai'i courts in their interpretation of HRCP). 8 . 2002Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw.App. 286 , 290 n. 6, 666 P.2d 171 , 174 n. 6; see also Molinar v. Schweizer, 95 Hawai'i 331, 336 , 22 P.3d 978, 983 (2001) (interpretation of FRCP by federal courts is persuasive authority for Hawai'i courts in their interpretation of HRCP). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Howard E. BUNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduet[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense.” Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch v 1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense." Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334 , 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch | 1 | 1 |
cluster 471001green2 sentences1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduet[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense.” Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch v 1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense." Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334 , 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch | 1 | 1 |
Rose Maree Jones v. Aero/chem Corp. And Athea Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduet[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense.” Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch v 1997According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "[u]nder [FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must, (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct[, and] (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense." Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334 , 1338 (9th Cir.1986); Bunch | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hayashi v. Hayashi
green
2 sentences2024See Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai #i 214, 251-52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997). ("Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule 'by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.'" (quoting Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532 , 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968))); Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw. 2024App. 286 , 290 n.6, 666 P.2d 171 , 174 n.6 (1983) (stating that the treatises and cases interpreting HRCP Rule 60(b) and FRCP Rule 60(b) provide persuasive reasoning for the interpretation of HFCR Rule 60(b)); accord Oliveira v. Oliveira, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2016 WL 4074083 , *2 n.5 (Haw. | 2 | 2002–2024 |
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70
green
2 sentences2005Under federal case law, an ex parte TRO “runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted [to] both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc., 415 U.S. at 439 , 94 S.Ct. 1113 . 2005Under federal case law, an ex parte TRO “runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted [to] both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc., 415 U.S. at 439 , 94 S.Ct. 1113 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers
green
2 sentences2002In First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 93 Hawaii 174 , 998 P.2d 55 (2000), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) examined the phrase "otherwise defend" in the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55(a), which is identical to HRCP Rule 55(a), by considering the interpretation of the similar FRCP Rule 55(a): Rule 55(a) obviously refers to and is designed to operate at the initial stages of a lawsuit. 2002In First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 93 Hawaii 174 , 998 P.2d 55 (2000), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) examined the phrase "otherwise defend" in the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55(a), which is identical to HRCP Rule 55(a), by considering the interpretation of the similar FRCP Rule 55(a): Rule 55(a) obviously refers to and is designed to operate at the initial stages of a lawsuit. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wong v. Takeuchi
green
2 sentences2002Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (1998) (citing Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai'i 86, 88 , 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997)); Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (citing Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai'i 214, 255 , 948 P.2d 1055, 1096 (1997)). 10 . 2002Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai'i 46 , 52 n. 4, 961 P.2d 611 , 617 n. 4 (1998) (citing Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle, 87 Hawai'i 86, 88 , 952 P.2d 374, 376 (1997)); Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 105 , 962 P.2d 353, 364 (1998) (citing Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai'i 214, 255 , 948 P.2d 1055, 1096 (1997)). 10 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
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.