 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AFL Hotel & Rest. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Alonzo, NO. 26563,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, March 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action brought by a trust fund against a borrower and borrower's counsel, circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-5(a), because the total amount in controversy did not exceed $ 10,000, exclusive of fees, costs, and interests.
|
|||||
| Lansdell v. County of Kauai, NO. 26415,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, March 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed the diver's negligence claims against State and county because they did not have a duty to warn the diver of dangers associated with diving in an ocean tide pool; they did not voluntarily assume duty to warn; and 1996 Haw. Sess. Laws 190 exempted them from liability for failing to warn of dangerous natural conditions.
|
|||||
| French v. French, NO. 26708,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Family court's award of costs and fees to former husband were void under Haw. R. App. P. 4(a)(3) as it did not have jurisdiction to enter them; wife had already appealed court's order to FBI to turn over her seized assets and that appeal was still alive when husband filed his motion, and nothing showed costs and fees were not related to FBI issue.
|
|||||
| Queen v. Robinson, NO. 26092,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where company had made two offers of settlement, which were rejected, and jury found in its favor, trial court erred in granting costs in amount of $ 103,037 on company's motions pursuant to Haw. R. Civ. P. 68 and 54 because, company relied on the first offer as the grounds for its motion but, that earlier offer had not been proven on the record.
|
|||||
| DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Props., NO. 25662,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lessee was entitled to attorneys' fees under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14 because lessee's action was clearly based on or arising out of a breach of the lease's terms and conditions, as lessee alleged that the genesis of the dispute was the lessor's rejection of the appraiser's determination of the prevailing rent, contrary to a lease provision.
|
|||||
| Maui Tomorrow v. State, NO. 26404, NO. 26623,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants were not entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 because § 5(f) of the Admission Act prohibited the State from using land or proceeds and income from lease of water rights to such land for purpose other than those enumerated in § 5(f), and appellants did not allege that appellees used land in manner contrary to § 5(f).
|
|||||
| Tataii v. Pang, NO. 24932,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court had no power to grant appellant an extension for filing a motion for reconsideration past the original 10-day deadline set out in Haw. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Consequently, the denial from which appellant sought relief was a nullity. The appellate court had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
|
|||||
| Block v. Block, NO. 26888,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce, family court did not err in finding that husband's business could not have been sold for wife's expert's appraised fair market value of $ 282,000, however, value of the husband's capital account at the end of 2003 was $ 3,096 and family court erred when it did not use that amount as the value of the husband's interest in the business.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
