 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook, NO. 28300,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Haw. R. Sup. Ct. 2.15(b) Supreme Court of Hawai'i issued notice of reciprocal discipline to attorney who had been suspended from practice in Louisiana for 3 years for violating La. Sup. Ct. R. XVII, § 3.1, 4.4, 8.4(a), and (d); attorney did not respond to the supreme court's notice and was suspended from practice in Hawai'i for 3 years.
|
|||||
| State v. Tunoa, NO. 27756,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, a prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct by sitting in the gallery during part of the trial and by acknowledging greetings of jurors because it was not misconduct for a prosecutor to attend a public criminal trial and to simply acknowledge the greetings of jurors, even if he or she was the elected prosecuting attorney.
|
|||||
| Tortorello v. Tortorello, No. 27459,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, March 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Res judicata barred a wife's second petition for a TRO under Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 586 because, inter alia, the husband did not waive the res judicata defense, the claims were identical in the two petitions, and the alleged past acts of abuse could have been indicated in the first petition; however, the award of costs to the husband was reduced.
|
|||||
| Munoz v. Hata, NO. 28317,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over appeal because circuit court had not yet reduced the dispositive orders to a separate, appealable final judgment as required under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-1(a) (2006), Haw. R. Civ. P. 58, and the holding in Jenkins v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming, & Wright; thus the appeal was premature and had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| State v. Schuck, NO. 27783,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an abuse of family or household members case under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 709-906 the trial court did not improperly use "pain" as the threshold to adjudicate defendant's guilt as it differentiated between the time when the act causing the pain occurred and the time when the victim became aware of the pain.
|
|||||
| Abejon v. State, NO. 27504,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal claiming that Hawai'i Paroling Authority violated appellant's liberty interest right when it decided he had to complete sex offender treatment program as a condition of parole was meritless, where appellant had agreed to participate in sex offender treatment as a condition of probation and had completed approximately 388 hours of treatment.
|
|||||
| Tokuhisa v. Cutter Mgmt. Co., NO. 28313,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where judgment did not contain operative language that disposed of all claims against all parties in this case, nor did it contain express finding necessary for certification pursuant to Haw. R. Civ. P. 54(b), judgment did not satisfy requirements for appealable final judgment under Haw. R. Civ. P. 58. Therefore, plaintiff's appeal was premature.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
