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.
11 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schofillgreen2 sentences1995HPC Rule 4-6(h); see also In re Hawai`i Gov't Employees' Ass'n, 63 Haw. at 89, 621 P.2d at 364 (upholding appellate jurisdiction where the agency's preliminary ruling ended the proceedings with respect to a party seeking intervention in a contested case). 1995HPC Rule 4-6(h); see also In re Hawai'i Gov’t Employees’ Ass’n, 63 Haw. at 89, 621 P.2d at 364 (upholding appellate jurisdiction where the agency’s preliminary ruling ended the proceedings with respect to a party seeking intervention in a contested case). | 2 | 2 |
Cho v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Although the plain language of HRCP Rule 60 does not contain a ten-day deadline for timeliness, the cases relied upon by the dissent graft HRCP Rule 59’s ten-day deadline into HRCP Rule 60 for purposes of HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) “tolling.” However, HRCP Rule 60 already has its own specified time for timely motions, i.e., “within a reasonable time.” In the instant case, Petitioners’ motion asked the circuit court to reconsider its order dismissing their complaint and the court’s final judgment, and sought vacatur as relief. 12 We noted in Cho that HRAP Rule 40(a) is titled as providing for a “motion 2025Although the plain language of HRCP Rule 60 does not contain a ten-day deadline for timeliness, the cases relied upon by the dissent graft HRCP Rule 59’s ten-day deadline into HRCP Rule 60 for purposes of HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) “tolling.” However, HRCP Rule 60 already has its own specified time for timely motions, i.e., “within a reasonable time.” In the instant case, Petitioners’ motion asked the circuit court to reconsider its order dismissing their complaint and the court’s final judgment, and sought vacatur as relief. 12 We noted in Cho that HRAP Rule 40(a) is titled as providing for a “motion | 1 | 1 |
Valley Oak Credit Union v. Villegas (In Re Villegas)green1 sentence2018In re Villegas, 132 B.R. 742, 747 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991), is squarely on point. | 1 | 1 |
Kahale v. City and County of Honolulugreen2 sentences2013We thus address Petitioners’ claim that Respondents tortiously interfered with their “prospective advantage, prospective business relationships and contracts with producers.” See Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 104 Hawai'i 341, 349 , 90 P.3d 233, 241 (2004) (“the City is subject to the state’s tort laws in the same manner as any other private tortfeasor”). 2013We thus address Petitioners’ claim that Respondents tortiously interfered with their “prospective advantage, prospective business relationships and contracts with producers.” See Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 104 Hawai'i 341, 349 , 90 P.3d 233, 241 (2004) (“the City is subject to the state’s tort laws in the same manner as any other private tortfeasor”). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarez Family Trust v. Association of Apartment Owners of the Kaanapali Aliigreen2 sentences2009The majority claims that this "reasoning is unavailing because ... the [ ] court's denial of Petitioners' motion for partial summary judgment was based on two independent legal conclusions regarding the pricing policy vote." Id. at ___, 221 P.3d at 467 (emphasis in original). 2009The majority claims that this "reasoning is unavailing because ... the [ ] court's denial of Petitioners' motion for partial summary judgment was based on two independent legal conclusions regarding the pricing policy vote." Id. at ___, 221 P.3d at 467 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Deponte v. Ulupalakua Ranch, Ltd.green2 sentences1999Deponte v. Ulupalakua Ranch, Limited, 48 Haw. 17, 19 , 395 P.2d 273, 275 (1964) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 1999Deponte v. Ulupalakua Ranch, Limited, 48 Haw. 17, 19 , 395 P.2d 273, 275 (1964) (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Department of Land & Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2026In Simpson, the ICA relied on principles gleaned from federal case law to support the court’s holding that HRCP Rule 60(b) motions may be treated as HRCP Rule 59(e) motions: In order to avoid confusion, and to prevent harsh results for unwary parties, the courts have generally held that, regardless of its label, any motion made within ten days of entry of judgment which seeks a substantive change in the judgment will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion which suspends the finality of the judgment and tolls the time to appeal. 8 Haw. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sprague v. California Pacific Bankers & Insurance Ltd.
green
2 sentences2007The petitioners did not challenge the assigna-bility of the underlying claim, id. at 198 n. 10, 74 P.3d at 21 n. 10, but asserted that general damages were personal and thus unassigna-ble. 2007The petitioners did not challenge the assigna-bility of the underlying claim, id. at 198 n. 10, 74 P.3d at 21 n. 10, but asserted that general damages were personal and thus unassigna-ble. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cram v. Bach
green
1 sentence1972Atlas Financial Corp. v. Oliver, Vt., 274 A.2d 687 (1971); Cram v. Bach, 1 Wis.2d 378 , 83 N.W.2d 877 , 85 N.W.2d 673 (1957). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
ATLAS FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. Oliver
green
1 sentence1972Atlas Financial Corp. v. Oliver, Vt., 274 A.2d 687 (1971); Cram v. Bach, 1 Wis.2d 378 , 83 N.W.2d 877 , 85 N.W.2d 673 (1957). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Territory of Hawaii v. Soga
green
1 sentence1910It was solely upon these grounds, all of which are set forth in the opinion of the court ( 20 Haw. 71 ), their substance being that the defendants were held under a complaint of the high sheriff and not under an indictment, that a juror was withdrawn by consent and that evidence claimed to be irrelevant was allowed, that the petitioners claim, as they did in their bill of exceptions, that the judgment of the circuit court was void. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.