 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Regency Tower v. Skates, NO. 28231,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In foreclosure action, defendant's appeal from order entered on plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was not appealable under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-51(a) as it was not judgment on decree of foreclosure, Haw. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certified judgment on order confirming sale of foreclosed property, or deficiency judgment.
|
|||||
| Park v. Dep't of Public Safety, NO. 28391,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Decanto, No. 26313,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence given by defendant's wife regarding three incidents of prior abuse by defendant was admissible under Haw. R. Evid. 612(1) or 802.1(4) as present recollection refreshed or as past recollection recorded. Also, admission was harmless in that evidence was confirmed by defendant in his trial testimony or innocuous in light of other evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Lindsey, No. 25867,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for promoting a detrimental drug under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1249(1) was improper because marijuana was seized in violation of Haw. Const. art. I, § 7, in that a pat down search only authorized a search for weapons and there was no evidence that defendant would have been subjected to inventory search for inevitable discovery exception.
|
|||||
| State v. Lopez, NO. 25767,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, NO. 27064,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, the trial court did not err in giving the instructions challenged by defendant as they all correctly stated the law. When read and considered as a whole, the instructions given by the trial court were not prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, No. 27065,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual assault convictions under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-732(1)(b) were proper because he failed to show that counsel was ineffective by failing to request a voluntariness hearing in that record showed that statement was clearly voluntary so that any challenge would have been futile and did not result in impairment of meritorious defense.
|
|||||
| State v. Raqueno, NO. 27492,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements made by defendants after they were arrested were properly excluded because defendants indicated that they did not wish to make any statements, and a second interrogation for the same crime was within hours of the first interrogation. Defendants did nothing to indicate that they wished to make a statement at the second interrogation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
