 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Outlaw v. Kurpis, NO. 27710,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying a father's petition for post-decree relief and a change in custody after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and duly considering and applying the law relevant to the issues raised and arguments presented.
|
|||||
| Scheffer v. Burns, NO. 28163,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Crowell, NO. 27467,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence was upheld where the trial court had weighed the demeanor and presentation of all the witnesses and determined the testimonies of defendant and two witnesses to be more credible than that of the arresting officer; such a determination was entirely in the trial court's province.
|
|||||
| State v. Kaiser, NO. 27525,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's sentence, rejecting defendant's argument that sentencing court failed to properly consider factors set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-606. Section 706-606 contained no requirement that the sentencing court expressly recite its findings on the record for each of the factors set forth in the statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Kawasaki, NO. 27433,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Haw. Const. art. I, § 7 were not violated when he was stopped and charged with DUI, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(3), because an officer observed defendant backing his vehicle up in a manner that was not prudent or safe.
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Bank Minn. N.A. v. Kama, NO. 26267,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrowers were not denied due process in relation to a foreclosure sale because assuming that the street address was incorrect, the fact sheets and newspaper advertising for the foreclosure sale also contained both the tax map key number and a description of the property, neither of which the borrowers claimed was inaccurate.
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Bank Minn. Nat'l Ass'n v. Kama, NO. 26267,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Miller v. Robello, NO. 28058,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court had not reduced the June 20, 2006 order to a separate judgment that, on its face, resolved all claims against all parties by (a) entering judgment on the applicable claims in favor of, and against, the appropriate parties as required by Haw. R. Civ. P. 58, the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
|
|||||
| Vidinha v. Miyaki, NO. 26188,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment entered in favor of the physicians on a medical malpractice claim was reversed because there were factual issues concerning whether or not the patient filed her claim in a timely manner after discovery thereof, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7.3, and whether the physicians were estopped from asserting a limitations defense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
