Legal Opinion

City and County of Honolulu v. Midkiff

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1976No. 6161PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal, asserting that it was taken from interlocutory orders which were not appealable. We hold that the appeal is before us on a timely and sufficient notice of appeal.

This action was brought by the City and County of Honolulu (City) against the trustees of the Bernice P. Bishop Estate (Trustees) and Appellant to condemn a parcel of land which was owned by the Trustees and leased to Appellant. Appellant’s answer asserted that the City had failed to follow General Plan amendment procedures and asked that the proceeding be dismissed, or in the alternative…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hatsumi Yoshizaki v. Hilo HospitalHawaii Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Credit Associates of Maui, Ltd. v. MontillianoHawaii Supreme Court · 1969

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & WrightHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Weinberg v. MauchHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  3. S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country ClubHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Lussier v. Mau-Van Development, Inc. IHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. State v. BohannonHawaii Supreme Court · 2003

19 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