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.
6 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adair v. Hustacegreen2 sentences2016Citing Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 321 , 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982), the ICA held that estoppel by laches has two required elements: first, “a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim” and the “delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances”; and, second, the “delay must have resulted in prejudice to defendant.” Id. 2016Citing Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 321 , 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982), the ICA held that estoppel by laches has two required elements: first, “a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim” and the “delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances”; and, second, the “delay must have resulted in prejudice to defendant.” Id. | 4 | 5 |
HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union v. Monalim.green1 sentence2024Credit Union v. Monalim, 147 Hawai‘i 33, 42, 464 P.3d 821, 830 (2020) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Uncle John's v. Mid-Pacific Restaurantsgreen2 sentences1999First, there must have been a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances.’” Uncle John’s of Hawaii v. Mid-Pacific Restaurants, 71 Haw. 412, 417 , 794 P.2d 614, 617 (1990) (quoting Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. *491 314, 321, 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982)). 1999First, there must have been a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances.’” Uncle John’s of Hawaii v. Mid-Pacific Restaurants, 71 Haw. 412, 417 , 794 P.2d 614, 617 (1990) (quoting Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. *491 314, 321, 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||