|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Hawaii - June 23 - June 26, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Williamson v. Williamson, No. 27397,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court properly granted a widow's motion to dismiss son's complaint to declare void marriage between widow and the son's deceased father where, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 572-1, 580-1, and 580-21, only a family court could declare void a marriage obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and it could not do so where there was subsequent cohabitation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Keahi v. State, NO. 27277,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, June 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: A petition to vacate, set aside, correct judgment, or be released from custody was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing where the Hawaii Paroling Authority followed Haw. Rev. Stat. § 353-66(f) (Supp. 2002) in revoking petitioner's parole after his second, not first, parole violation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Wittig v. Allianz, NO. 26227,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, June 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court did not err by granting an insurer summary judgment, Haw. R. Civ. P. 56, on an employee's bad faith workers' compensation claim because the settlement offer, including the term that the employee resign, was not against public policy, and it was not coercive as the employee had the option of declining to accept the offer.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|