 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Granger v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., NO. 25457,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for UIM insurer was error because once insurer withheld its consent to other motorist's settlement offer, insurer must pay the insured the settlement amount in order to protect its subrogation rights. Purposes of Wash. Rev. Code § 431:10C-301(b)(4) would be subverted if insured were forced to go to trial or forfeit her UIM rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Cuthrell, NO. 25706,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenge to sentence of probation was dismissed as moot because defendant's resentencing imposed a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year and eight months, the remedy sought by the prosecution, and it could hardly be said that the question of which statute took precedence "evaded review."
|
|||||
| State v. Kahapea, NO. 27278,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a theft case, consecutive sentences, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-668.5, were proper because defendant stole $ 1.3 million from a financially strapped city, and defendant effected a complicated scheme through the manipulation of others and at the profound and unrecoverable expense of taxpayers; while stern, the sentence furthered penological goals.
|
|||||
| State v. Calipjo, NO. 27305,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Kekuewa, No. 27248,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DUI case, defendant's motion to dismiss should have been granted due to a defective charge; the five-year time period omitted from the oral charge was a critical part of the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(b)(2) attendant circumstance, one with special resonance in light of defendant's several prior DUI convictions.
|
|||||
| Cambra v. Maui Pineapple Co., NO. 25932,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of an employer's motion for reconsideration that the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board was barred by res judicata, because a prior decision by the Appeals Board regarding the claimant's condition did not address whether the claimant's pulmonary fibrosis was a compensable work injury.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., NO. 25892,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Malahoff v. Saito, NO. 25180,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While Haw. Rev. Stat. § 78-13 did not violate Haw. Const. art. XIII, § 2 nor Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 89, the specific implementation dates set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 78-13 were mandatory and exception from twice-monthly pay requirement to payroll lag was not available to State.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Law Office of J.T. Thomas, NO. 25795,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of a claimant's motion to reopen her workers' compensation claim as the last payment the claimant received for a back injury was in December 1988, and the claimant did not seek to reopen the 1988 claim until 2003. Thus, the claim was time-barred under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-89 (1993).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
