 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doe v. Wong, NO. 28123,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Doe v. Wong, NO. 28123,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Groves v. Outrigger Hotels Haw., NO. 27448,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court did not err in granting plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration because a letter signed by the hotel's counsel constituted a written agreement to arbitrate before a dispute resolution company. The letter sent by the hotel's counsel reasonably led plaintiffs to believe that the hotel's counsel had the authority he purported to have.
|
|||||
| Haw. Golden Gloves, Inc. v. Martin, NO. 27981,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As judgment did not on its face resolve all claims against all parties, did not identify claim or claims on which circuit court entered judgment, and did not dismiss all other claims on which court was not entering judgment, it was not appealable final judgment under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-1(a) (2005), Haw. R. Civ. P. 58, and Jenkins v. Cades.
|
|||||
| Haw. Med. Ass'n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass'n, NOS. 25923 & 25924,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because claims of unfair competition by plaintiff physicians, and a medical association, under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(e) regarding defendant medical services corporation were not claims for which the parties' arbitration clause was contemplated in the physician agreements, plaintiffs had standing to sue in their own right.
|
|||||
| Hua v. Bd. of Trs. of the Emples. Ret. Sys., NO. 26315,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of school custodian's claim for service-connected disability retirement under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 88-79 was reversed because he was on the employer's premises doing what the employer required him to do when he fell before work, thus he was engaged in the "actual performance of his duty" for purposes of service-connected disability retirement.
|
|||||
| Miserendino v. Miserendino, NO. 27998,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a judgment entered on the corporations' cross-claims, pursuant to Haw. R. Civ. P. 58 or Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-1(a)(2005) because the judgment did not resolve all the claims against all parties and did not provide sufficient information for certification under Haw. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
|
|||||
| State v. Razo, NO. 26604,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for first degree attempted promotion of a dangerous drug. It was reasonable for jury to infer that defendant obtained methamphetamine and other items as a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the distribution of at least one-eighth ounce of methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| State v. Ribbel, No. 26525,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though she had the lap portion of her seat belt on, because the shoulder harness was under her arm, defendant was not wearing her seat belt in the manner in which it was designed and generally understood to be worn, and therefore she violated Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291-11.6 (Supp. 2003).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
