10 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc.green2 sentences2026Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 197, 268 P.3d 443, 450 (App. 2011). 2026Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 197, 268 P.3d 443, 450 (App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Bettencourt v. Bettencourtgreen2 sentences2026See HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." (brackets and citations omitted)). 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER agreement: (1) a declaration (Gray Declaration) by the Association's counsel Taylor Gray asserting that Owners' former counsel, Ronald Ogomori (Ogomori), "confirmed" to Gray that "his clients were in agreement with the term 2026See HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." (brackets and citations omitted)). 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER agreement: (1) a declaration (Gray Declaration) by the Association's counsel Taylor Gray asserting that Owners' former counsel, Ronald Ogomori (Ogomori), "confirmed" to Gray that "his clients were in agreement with the term | 1 | 1 |
Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2024Prevention & Resol., Inc. Rule IV(4) (2019) (providing that "except in limited circumstances, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies and other entities must be represented by licensed attorneys") https://dprhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-30-2020-Arbitration- Rules-Final-Version.pdf [https://perma.cc/YBF8-848J]; see Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Constr., Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 374 , 590 P.2d 570, 572 (1979) (explaining "a corporation cannot appear and represent itself either in proper person or by its officers, but can do so only by an attorney admitted t 2024Prevention & Resol., Inc. Rule IV(4) (2019) (providing that "except in limited circumstances, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies and other entities must be represented by licensed attorneys") https://dprhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-30-2020-Arbitration- Rules-Final-Version.pdf [https://perma.cc/YBF8-848J]; see Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Constr., Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 374 , 590 P.2d 570, 572 (1979) (explaining "a corporation cannot appear and represent itself either in proper person or by its officers, but can do so only by an attorney admitted t | 1 | 1 |
Penn v. Transportation Lease Hawaii, Ltd.green2 sentences2003See infra at 6-9 for a discussion regarding the elements of a collateral order in which it is explained that a lis pendens fully decides one issue. [6] The ICA, in Penn v. Transportation Lease Hawaii, Ltd., 2 Haw.App. 272, 274 , 630 P.2d 646, 649 (1981), relied on Forgay v. Conrad for the proposition that it had jurisdiction to review the appellant's appeal, despite the fact that the appeal was not interlocutory and the circuit court had not certified the appeal, because the appellant would suffer irreparable injury if he had to wait for a final outcome of the litigation. 2003See infra at 6-9 for a discussion regarding the elements of a collateral order in which it is explained that a lis pendens fully decides one issue. [6] The ICA, in Penn v. Transportation Lease Hawaii, Ltd., 2 Haw.App. 272, 274 , 630 P.2d 646, 649 (1981), relied on Forgay v. Conrad for the proposition that it had jurisdiction to review the appellant's appeal, despite the fact that the appeal was not interlocutory and the circuit court had not certified the appeal, because the appellant would suffer irreparable injury if he had to wait for a final outcome of the litigation. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vlietgreen1 sentence2002See Vliet , 95 Hawai`i at 106-07, 19 P.3d at 54-55 . [13] We respectfully disagree with Justice Ramil's contention that WRC's offer of judgment, releasing it from past, present, and future damages, would have, in effect, disposed of the Association's claim that WRC owned the easements or all of the Association's future causes of action related to the issue of ownership. [1] The difference between an "express" and "implied" easement is emphasized by the definition of "express": "Declared in terms; set forth in words.... | 1 | 1 |
Walsh v. Changreen2 sentences2002See Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai`i 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995). 3. 2002See Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai'i 212, 215 , 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995). 3. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Co., 107 Hawai'i 106 , 111 P.3d 1 (2005), the appellant argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appel-lee because the depositions offered in support of the appellee’s motion for summary judgment were not properly authenticated and were therefore inadmissible. 2008Co., 107 Hawai'i 106 , 111 P.3d 1 (2005), the appellant argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appel-lee because the depositions offered in support of the appellee’s motion for summary judgment were not properly authenticated and were therefore inadmissible. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Marks v. Marks
green
1 sentence2023See HRCP Rule 13(f); Marks v. Marks, 51 Haw. 548 , 8 Clay's motion for leave to file the counterclaim and Association's motion for summary judgment on Count I were both filed in June 2016 and were both heard and decided during the same November 30, 2016 hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pennymac Corp. v. Godinez.
green
1 sentence2023Res Judicata "In the past, the term 'res judicata' was used to describe both claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)." PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez, 148 Hawai‘i 323, 328 n.5, 474 P.3d 264 , 269 n.5 (2020) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
D'Elia v. Association of Apartment Owners of Fairway Manor
green
1 sentence1992Id. at 351, 632 P.2d at 299 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cochran v. Pflueger Automobiles, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Id. 1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.