 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bento v. Valley Isle Motors, NO. 26961, 27004, & 27325,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the claims and potential claims at issue between two individuals and appellant and two corporations were not claims against co-obligors on an alleged contract debt, related settlements were not excluded from the purview of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-15.5 based on a construction of the statute in Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83 (2003).
|
|||||
| Haw. Home Infusion Assocs. v. Befitel, NO. 27256,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was vacated and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss because under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7, plaintiff had to reside or have its principal place of business in the county in which the adjudicating circuit court sat; and initiating a § 91-7 action in the wrong circuit was a defect of jurisdiction that mandated dismissal.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of G Children: V.G., NO. 27866,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In child protective act case, court did not err in denying mother's motion for continuance as any harm that might have been caused to her by denial was rendered harmless by the facts stated in findings of fact which included that all that was left for continued trial were closing arguments as the parties had agreed DHS witness was not necessary.
|
|||||
| Jou v. Nat'l Interstate Ins. Co. of Haw., No. 26204,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A physician was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before suing a workers' compensation insurer for refusing to pay for treatment since the claim was originally cognizable in court, but the physician's claim was precluded since the physician was only an incidental beneficiary of the insurer's workers' compensation contract.
|
|||||
| Mangel v. Mangel, No. 27742,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inter alia, the trial court erred in ordering equalizing payment to the wife in the amount of $ 67,000 for her share in the parties' home because the premarital agreement specifically stated that any marital property acquired was to be divided equally upon divorce, subject to the mortgage, which made the value of the wife's interest $ 189,500.
|
|||||
| Nakayama v. Cameron, NO. 27746,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in ordering a husband to pay costs and attorney fees to a wife in divorce action where husband clearly knew that he would be undergoing extensive training for U.S. Navy and that a scheduled trial would have to be rescheduled; award was authorized by the husband's failure to timely request a rescheduling of the date of trial.
|
|||||
| Zane v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., NO. 27317,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact issues remained concerning whether an insurer waived its right to offset UIM coverage against the virtually limitless bodily injury coverage of a self-insured vehicle manufacturer with which an insured settled personal injury claims, since the insurer's consent to the settlement did not by itself establish waiver or estoppel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
