 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fox v. Fox, NO. 28032,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from a postjudgment order of the family court was denied because the court had jurisdiction to address the post-judgment order pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-54 and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-1. The initial appeal was premature and a nullity but the amended appeal cured any notice defects.
|
|||||
| Haw. Med. Ass'n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass'n, NOS. 25923 & 25924,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Saunders v. Yoshina, NO. 28181,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pacific Waste, Inc., NO. 26325,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision entered by the trial court was affirmed because trial court did not err when it granted the motion to compel discover under Haw. Dist. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26 when the documents at issue were not shown to be privileged. Plaintiffs were entitled to an attorney fee as a sanction for the discovery dispute under Haw. Dist. Ct. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
|
|||||
| State v. Cambra, NO. 26746,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was properly denied because there was evidence to show that the warrant was executed by a judge when it was returned and that the items seized were properly inventoried in front of a witness as required by Haw. R. Penal P. 41(d). Testimony from the State's expert was properly admitted at trial pursuant to Haw. R. Evid. 703.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, NO. 27207,
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for harassment, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1106(1)(a, was affirmed because there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could infer that defendant struck the victim in an offensive manner. Defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Schneidewind, NO. 27160,
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
