Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Thompson v. Kyo-Ya Co., Ltd.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 2006No. 26040Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

ACOBA, J.,

with whom DUFFY, J. joins.

I concur in the result only on the grounds that (1) Crichfield v. Grand Wailea, 93 Hawai'i 477, 6 P.3d 349 (2000), relied on by the parties on appeal, is inapposite where the liability of an access owner such as Defendant-Appellee Kyo-Ya Company, Ltd. dba Sheraton-Maui Hotel (Sheraton) under Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 520, the Hawaii Recreational Use Statute (HRUS), is involved, (2) the majority’s dependence on Hafford v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 687 A.2d 967 (Me.1996), and the recreational use statute of Maine is wrong, and (3) the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Rodrigues v. StateHawaii Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Monteville v. Terrebonne Par. Con. Gov'tSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1990

14 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