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.
7 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yamamoto v. Premier Insurancered2 sentences2009The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse's claim for damages." Yamamoto, 4 Haw. 2004Co., 4 Haw.App. 429, 435 , 668 P.2d 42, 48 (1983) (indicating that wife’s derivative claim for damages is separate from her spouse’s tort claim); see also Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098, 1102 (Colo.Ct.App.2002) (permitting tolling for an inmate’s claim while incarcerated, but disallowing tolling for the loss of consortium claim of the inmate’s wife, who was free to file suit within the limitations period); Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 416 (Colo.1999) (recognizing tolling provisions for a child in a medical malpractice suit, but barring the loss of consortium action of the child’s parents | 1 | 3 |
Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc.green2 sentences2024See, e.g., Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc., 69 Haw. 192, 199 , 738 P.2d 85, 91 (1987) (“In view of the basis upon which the loss of consortium claim arises and the significant number of jurisdictions that continue to treat it as derivative, we . . . refuse to recognize the loss of consortium claim as a separate and independent cause of action and continue to treat it as derivative.”). 7 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to GEO Care’s MSJ on June 29, 2022. 2024See, e.g., Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc., 69 Haw. 192, 199 , 738 P.2d 85, 91 (1987) (“In view of the basis upon which the loss of consortium claim arises and the significant number of jurisdictions that continue to treat it as derivative, we . . . refuse to recognize the loss of consortium claim as a separate and independent cause of action and continue to treat it as derivative.”). 7 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to GEO Care’s MSJ on June 29, 2022. | 1 | 2 |
Ueland v. Pengo Hydra-Pull Corp.green2 sentences2024Nevertheless, she cites Ueland v. Reynolds Metals Co., 103 Wash. 2d 131, 140 , 691 P.2d 190, 195 (Wash. 1984), for the proposition that “a child has an independent cause of action for loss of the love, care, companionship and guidance of a parent tortiously injured by a third party.” In Ueland, while acknowledging that some other jurisdictions do not recognize such a claim, the Washington Supreme Court stated, “We find more persuasive the reasoning found in these decisions recognizing the cause of action. . . . 2024Nevertheless, she cites Ueland v. Reynolds Metals Co., 103 Wash. 2d 131, 140 , 691 P.2d 190, 195 (Wash. 1984), for the proposition that “a child has an independent cause of action for loss of the love, care, companionship and guidance of a parent tortiously injured by a third party.” In Ueland, while acknowledging that some other jurisdictions do not recognize such a claim, the Washington Supreme Court stated, “We find more persuasive the reasoning found in these decisions recognizing the cause of action. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2004Co., 4 Haw.App. 429, 435 , 668 P.2d 42, 48 (1983) (indicating that wife's derivative claim for damages is separate from her spouse's tort claim); see also Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098, 1102 (Colo.Ct.App.2002) (permitting tolling for an inmate's claim while incarcerated, but disallowing tolling for the loss of consortium claim of the inmate's wife, who was free to file suit within the limitations period); Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 416 (Colo.1999) (recognizing tolling provisions for a child in a medical malpractice suit, but barring the loss of consortium action of the child's parents 2004Co., 4 Haw.App. 429, 435 , 668 P.2d 42, 48 (1983) (indicating that wife’s derivative claim for damages is separate from her spouse’s tort claim); see also Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098, 1102 (Colo.Ct.App.2002) (permitting tolling for an inmate’s claim while incarcerated, but disallowing tolling for the loss of consortium claim of the inmate’s wife, who was free to file suit within the limitations period); Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 416 (Colo.1999) (recognizing tolling provisions for a child in a medical malpractice suit, but barring the loss of consortium action of the child’s parents | 1 | 1 |
Elgin v. Bartlettred2 sentences2004Co., 4 Haw.App. 429, 435 , 668 P.2d 42, 48 (1983) (indicating that wife's derivative claim for damages is separate from her spouse's tort claim); see also Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098, 1102 (Colo.Ct.App.2002) (permitting tolling for an inmate's claim while incarcerated, but disallowing tolling for the loss of consortium claim of the inmate's wife, who was free to file suit within the limitations period); Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 416 (Colo.1999) (recognizing tolling provisions for a child in a medical malpractice suit, but barring the loss of consortium action of the child's parents 2004Co., 4 Haw.App. 429, 435 , 668 P.2d 42, 48 (1983) (indicating that wife’s derivative claim for damages is separate from her spouse’s tort claim); see also Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098, 1102 (Colo.Ct.App.2002) (permitting tolling for an inmate’s claim while incarcerated, but disallowing tolling for the loss of consortium claim of the inmate’s wife, who was free to file suit within the limitations period); Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 416 (Colo.1999) (recognizing tolling provisions for a child in a medical malpractice suit, but barring the loss of consortium action of the child’s parents | 1 | 1 |
Maidman v. Stagggreen2 sentences1987E.g., Eggert v. Working, 599 P.2d 1389 (Alaska 1979); Maidman v. Stagg, 82 A.D.2d 299 , 441 N.Y.S.2d 711 (1981). 1987E.g., Eggert v. Working, 599 P.2d 1389 (Alaska 1979); Maidman v. Stagg, 82 A.D.2d 299 , 441 N.Y.S.2d 711 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
green
2 sentences1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). 1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). | 3 | 1983–2009 |
Towse v. State
green
2 sentences1987In view of the basis upon which the loss of consortium claim arises and the significant number of jurisdictions that continue to treat it as derivative, we do not deviate from our prior ruling in Towse v. State, 64 Haw. 624 , 647 P.2d 696 (1982). 1987In view of the basis upon which the loss of consortium claim arises and the significant number of jurisdictions that continue to treat it as derivative, we do not deviate from our prior ruling in Towse v. State, 64 Haw. 624 , 647 P.2d 696 (1982). | 2 | 1987–1996 |
Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). 1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). | 2 | 1983–1996 |
Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
green
2 sentences1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). 1996The loss of consortium claim is a claim for damages independent and separate from the spouse’s claim for damages.” Yamamoto, 4 Haw.App. at 435-36 , 668 P.2d at 48 (citing Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 52 Or.App. 853 , 631 P.2d 1377 (1981), aff'd, 293 Or. 543 , 652 P.2d 318 (1982), and Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571 , 157 N.W.2d 595 (1968)) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., Inc
red
1 sentence1987It is evident from all of the aforesaid elements comprising consortium, there is a “conceptualistic unity” of marital interests, Hitaffer, 87 U.S. App. D.C. at_, 183 F.2d at 814 , which forms the basis of the legal right for a loss of consortium claim. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Eggert v. Working
green
1 sentence1987E.g., Eggert v. Working, 599 P.2d 1389 (Alaska 1979); Maidman v. Stagg, 82 A.D.2d 299 , 441 N.Y.S.2d 711 (1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lantis v. Condon
green
2 sentences1986Although the modern trend of tort law is to consider loss of consortium as an injury to the deprived spouse giving rise to a separate and independent action for damages, see generally, Prosser, Torts § 125 (5th ed. 1984); see also Annot., 36 A.L.R. 3d 900 (1971); Lantis v. Condon, 95 Cal. App. 3d 152 , 157 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1979); Christie v. Maxwell, 40 Wash. App. 40 , 696 P.2d 1256 (1985), nevertheless, it remains a derivative claim dependent for its viability upon the personal injury to one’s spouse. 1986Although the modern trend of tort law is to consider loss of consortium as an injury to the deprived spouse giving rise to a separate and independent action for damages, see generally, Prosser, Torts § 125 (5th ed. 1984); see also Annot., 36 A.L.R. 3d 900 (1971); Lantis v. Condon, 95 Cal. App. 3d 152 , 157 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1979); Christie v. Maxwell, 40 Wash. App. 40 , 696 P.2d 1256 (1985), nevertheless, it remains a derivative claim dependent for its viability upon the personal injury to one’s spouse. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Christie v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences1986Although the modern trend of tort law is to consider loss of consortium as an injury to the deprived spouse giving rise to a separate and independent action for damages, see generally, Prosser, Torts § 125 (5th ed. 1984); see also Annot., 36 A.L.R. 3d 900 (1971); Lantis v. Condon, 95 Cal. App. 3d 152 , 157 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1979); Christie v. Maxwell, 40 Wash. App. 40 , 696 P.2d 1256 (1985), nevertheless, it remains a derivative claim dependent for its viability upon the personal injury to one’s spouse. 1986Although the modern trend of tort law is to consider loss of consortium as an injury to the deprived spouse giving rise to a separate and independent action for damages, see generally, Prosser, Torts § 125 (5th ed. 1984); see also Annot., 36 A.L.R. 3d 900 (1971); Lantis v. Condon, 95 Cal. App. 3d 152 , 157 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1979); Christie v. Maxwell, 40 Wash. App. 40 , 696 P.2d 1256 (1985), nevertheless, it remains a derivative claim dependent for its viability upon the personal injury to one’s spouse. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Peters v. Peters
green
2 sentences1983Cf. Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653 , 634 P.2d 586 (1981). 8 On appeal, the reviewing court may examine the entire record for the presence of any issue of material fact. 1983Cf. Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653 , 634 P.2d 586 (1981). 8 On appeal, the reviewing court may examine the entire record for the presence of any issue of material fact. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.