 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lansing v. Jenko-Crispin, NO. 28423,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. Iamwong, NO. 27235,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Murray, NO. 27549,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., NOS. 25344 & 26820,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Holi v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., NO. 26059,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Basuel, NO. 27080,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ruggiero, NO. 26940,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the complaint did not allege defendant's prior conviction of driving under the influence, it was insufficient to charge him with a violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a), (b)(2) as a second-time offender, and therefore his conviction and sentence were vacated.
|
|||||
| Wu v. Nifalar, NO. 26879,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in admitting witness's deposition under Haw. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)(D) as driver 1 had been unable to procure her attendance by subpoena; driver 1 exercised due diligence in attempting to procure the witness's attendance at trial by, inter alia, hiring investigator to find her address and attempting to serve her numerous times.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
