Legal Opinion

Lalakea v. Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1941No. 2326Published

1Per curiam

Costs in this court on appeal were allowed Lily Hewahewa and Thomas Kanamu Lalakea, by his guardian ad litem, Lily Hewahewa, respondents-appellants. (See per curiam, ante, p. 682.) They included attorneys’ fees allowed the attorneys for the guardian ad litem for the services rendered by them on behalf of the minor in this court on the minor’s appeal. (Lalakea v. Laupahoehoe S. Co., ante, p. 262.) Respondents-appellants noiv move for the entry of an order taxing the costs allowed against Solomon K. Lalakea and Mollie Pang Lalakea, petitioners-appellees, and Laupahoehoe Sugar Company,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kamalu v. LovellHawaii Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Territory v. KobayashiHawaii Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Christian Ex Rel. Von Holt v. Waialua Agricultural Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Lalakea v. Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Magoon v. Lord-Young Engineering Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1916

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API