Legal Opinion

Kim Chul Soon v. City & County of Honolulu

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1931No. 1991PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

BANKS, J.

This is a motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the defendant’s bill of exceptions on the ground that it was not presented to the trial judge within the time provided by section 2515, R. L. 1925. The defendant admits that the bill was not presented within the statutory period and also admits that its failure to do so was due solely to a misapprehension of the law on the part of Hoon Wo Wong, a deputy city and county attorney, Avho represented the defendant. Subsequent to the expiration of the statutory period the bill was presented and was signed by the judge and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. MayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Ayers v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Territory of Hawaii ex rel. Holloway v. CottonHawaii Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd. v. E. Peck & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd. v. ThurstonHawaii Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Coney v. Lihue Plantation Co., Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Territory of Hawaii v. MaloneyHawaii Supreme Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API