towel bar (Hawaii) · Go Syfert
← Hawaii issues

towel bar in Hawaii

5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2011 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Cabral v. McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd.green
hawapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992App. 223, 226-27 , 647 P.2d 1232, 1234 (1982) (discretion exercised in addressing strict liability claim not raised below). 8 In Bidar , the plaintiff sustained injuries when, as a guest of a hotel, she grabbed a towel bar in her hotel room as support in rising from a toilet seat. 66 Haw. at 554, 669 P.2d at 160 . 9 The publ isher of the chart had taken the specifications prescribed by the FA A in tabular form and had portrayed the information on graphic approach charts.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Bidar v. Amfac, Inc. green
haw · 1983
2 sentences

2011Thus, according to Bidar , “[wjhether it was foreseeable that a guest would grab a towel bar within easy reach for support in rising from a toilet seat is in our view a genuine issue of material fact that ought to be left for jury consideration.” Id. at 554 , 669 P.2d at 160 .

2011Thus, according to Bidar , "[w]hether it was foreseeable that a guest would grab a towel bar within easy reach for support in rising from a toilet seat is in our view a genuine issue of material fact that ought to be left for jury consideration." Id. at 554 , 669 P.2d at 160 .

51987–2011
Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu green
haw · 1969
2 sentences

2011Thus, according to Bidar , “[wjhether it was foreseeable that a guest would grab a towel bar within easy reach for support in rising from a toilet seat is in our view a genuine issue of material fact that ought to be left for jury consideration.” Id. at 554 , 669 P.2d at 160 .

2011Thus, according to Bidar , "[w]hether it was foreseeable that a guest would grab a towel bar within easy reach for support in rising from a toilet seat is in our view a genuine issue of material fact that ought to be left for jury consideration." Id. at 554 , 669 P.2d at 160 .

12011–2011
Barbara A. Brocklesby v. United States of America, and Jeppesen and Company green
ca9 · 1985
1 sentence

1992Brocklesby, 767 F.2d at 1292 .

11992–1992

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check