 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mizukami v. Mizukami, 26890, 26927, 26958, 26986, and, 27157,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal of various orders in divorce, appellate court held the husband did not have a right to be paid for his personal time and effort and, as far as his costs and out-of-pocket expenses were concerned, it appeared that he would not have incurred any expenses had he agreed to stipulate to the withdrawal of the wife's motion for protective order.
|
|||||
| Schmidt v. Pac. Benefit Servs., NO. 25755,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order confirming an arbitration award was affirmed where the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review it because a motion to vacate was untimely. Lack of an acknowledgment did not affect the validity of the award and did not affect the 10-day period, set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658-11, during which a motion to vacate should have been filed.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Knapp v. AES Corp., NO. 26151,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing consumer's unfair and deceptive trade practice claims under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2 against electric companies where her policy and continuing violation arguments were deemed waived and she did not present argument as to why her claims were not barred by statute of limitations in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-24(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Kauhi, No. 26943,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by admitting into evidence defendant's statement to a police officer at the crime scene that she had shot victim because the statement was not made during a custodial interrogation, as officers where unaware of how or why defendant had shot victim and therefore Miranda warnings were not required under the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, NO. 27107,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant grabbed a knife during an argument and waved it at the victim, defendant's conduct made the victim fearful that she would be stabbed. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of terroristic threatening in the first degree, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-716(1)(d).
|
|||||
| Samonte v. State, NO. 27483,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nash-Givens v. Kaiser Hosp. Found., NO. 27077,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Mikasa, NO. 25776, NO. 25777, NO. 25778,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In petitioner's drug case, consecutive sentences were properly imposed, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-606, because, although the court made a post-sentencing reference to an uncharged "conspiracy," there were many circumstances supporting the sentence including petitioner's continued drug offenses, his "dealing" of drugs, and the impact of his conduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
