 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Diplomat Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Lazo, NO. 26570,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly entered judgment for a travel company where there was no evidence that it failed to act in accord with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 468L-5 (1993) when it accepted an individual's endorsed check for travel services provided to another entity and nothing indicated that it had participated in breach of fiduciary duty by that entity.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. State, NO. 27060,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action, a court properly found for defendant because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the court's findings that: (1) the correct location of the poalima was needed to measure the description of the subject property; and (2) the correct location of the poalima was its location as depicted on a 1926 map.
|
|||||
| Grandinetti v. Shimoda, NO. 28347,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Basuel, NO. 27080,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court erred by imposing a $ 60,000 fine because there was nothing in the record indicating that defendant was or would be able to pay the fine or that the circuit court took into account defendant's financial resources and the nature of the burden that its payment would impose, as required by Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-641(3)(a), (4) (1993).
|
|||||
| State v. Campbell, No. 27339,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of defendant's attempt to rob a second customer at the same ATM on day after charged robbery was properly relevant under Haw. R. Evid. 404 to a key disputed issue as to defendant's intent in possessing Exacto knife; jury could infer that defendant had intentionally taken the cap off the knife and intended to use it in a threatening manner.
|
|||||
| State v. Grindling, NO. 26696,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second degree criminal and harassment were affirmed on appeal, where there was substantial evidence to support the district court's conclusion that defendant was guilty of both crimes.
|
|||||
| State v. Wachi, NO. 26477,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jelks v. Haw. Paroling Auth., NO. 28293,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a circuit court had not yet reduced to a separate judgment an order of dismissal adjudicating an administrative appeal that was appealable under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 602-57 and 641-1, an intermediate appeal was premature and lacked jurisdiction under Haw. R. Civ. P. 58 and 72(k) and under the separate judgment doctrine.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Maise, NO. 28310,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was untimely as court did not dispose of Haw. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration and under 90-day limit of Haw. R. App. P. 4(a)(3), Haw. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration was deemed denied on October 31, 2006 and appellant did not file his notice of appeal within 30 days after that date as Haw. R. App. P. 4(a)(3) required.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
