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.
5 Hawaii opinions name it 1 courts 1921–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc.green2 sentences2011Federal courts have indicated that “[FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3) is the lineal descendant of the equity rule that a court may alter or annul, because of fraud or undue influence, a written instrument (such as a contract or patent-but also a court’s own judgment), only if the fraud or undue influence is proved by clear and convincing evidence.” 24 Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’s, Inc., 517 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir.2008) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Massi v. Walgreen Co., No. 3:05— cv-425, 2008 WL 2066453 , at *3 (E.D.Tenn. 2011Federal courts have indicated that "[FRCP] Rule 60(b)(3) is the lineal descendant of the equity rule that a court may alter or annul, because of fraud or undue influence, a written instrument (such as a contract or patent-but also a court's own judgment), only if the fraud or undue influence is proved by clear and convincing evidence." [24] Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc., 517 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir.2008) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Massi v. Walgreen Co., No. 3:05-cv-425, 2008 WL 2066453 , at *3 (E.D.Tenn. | 1 | 1 |
Bryan v. Buttsgreen1 sentence1921See Bryan v. Butts, 27 Barb. 503 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie
green
1 sentence2011The majority contends that some federal cases have stated that "Rule 60(b)(3) is the lineal descendant of the equity rule that a court may alter or annul, because of fraud or undue influence, a written instrument (such as a contract or patent-but also a court's own judgment), see [ Hazel-Atlas ], 322 U.S. [at] 244-45 [ 64 S.Ct. 997 ], only if the fraud or undue influence is proved by clear and convincing evidence." Majority opinion at 148, 254 P.3d at 459 (quoting Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc., 517 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir.2008) (citation added); Massi v. Walgreen Co., No. 3:05-cv-425, 2008 *481 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
green
1 sentence2011The majority contends that some federal cases have stated that "Rule 60(b)(3) is the lineal descendant of the equity rule that a court may alter or annul, because of fraud or undue influence, a written instrument (such as a contract or patent-but also a court's own judgment), see [ Hazel-Atlas ], 322 U.S. [at] 244-45 [ 64 S.Ct. 997 ], only if the fraud or undue influence is proved by clear and convincing evidence." Majority opinion at 148, 254 P.3d at 459 (quoting Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc., 517 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir.2008) (citation added); Massi v. Walgreen Co., No. 3:05-cv-425, 2008 *481 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bendix Aviation Corporation v. Glass
green
1 sentence1968Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass, 81 F. Supp. 645 (E.D. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Cousineau v. Cousineau
green
2 sentences1953(Haas v. Haas, 59 So. [2d] 642; Sackler v. Sackler [Fla.] 47 So. [2d] 292; Cousineau v. Cousineau, 155 Ore. 184 , 63 P. [2d] 897 .) In balancing the conveniences, it is very obvious that a refusal to enforce by equitable decree would create more injustice than the enforcement thereof. 1953(Haas v. Haas, 59 So. [2d] 642; Sackler v. Sackler [Fla.] 47 So. [2d] 292; Cousineau v. Cousineau, 155 Ore. 184 , 63 P. [2d] 897 .) In balancing the conveniences, it is very obvious that a refusal to enforce by equitable decree would create more injustice than the enforcement thereof. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Territory v. Tsunekichi
neutral
1 sentence1949(Ter. v. Tsunekichi, 23 Haw. 813 ; Peabody v. Leong Yen, 26 Haw. 63 .) It is no longer a question, however, of whether the common-law doctrine, which looked upon a mortgage as an absolute conveyance of title, subject to equity of redemption or to defeat on performance of condition subsequent, or whether the equity doctrine, which treated a mortgage merely as security for the payment of a debt or the performance of some duty, should prevail. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Peabody v. Leong Yen
neutral
1 sentence1949(Ter. v. Tsunekichi, 23 Haw. 813 ; Peabody v. Leong Yen, 26 Haw. 63 .) It is no longer a question, however, of whether the common-law doctrine, which looked upon a mortgage as an absolute conveyance of title, subject to equity of redemption or to defeat on performance of condition subsequent, or whether the equity doctrine, which treated a mortgage merely as security for the payment of a debt or the performance of some duty, should prevail. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.