Legal Opinion

Hing Bo Gum v. Mataichi Nakamura

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1976No. 5691PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff filed in the court below a complaint against the defendants for specific performance, or in the alternative for damages. His claim is predicated upon a written agreement, more commonly known as a deposit, receipt, offer and acceptance (hereinafter DROA).

In their answer to the complaint, defendants Mataichi Nakamura and Oteru Nakamura Ikeda (hereinafter defendants-sellers) 1 admitted that they and the plaintiff had entered into the DROA. They further admitted that they were the owners of land described in the complaint and in the DROA. The DROA evidences the payment of $500.00 by…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Goodwin, Inc v. Orson E Coe Pontiac, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Abraham v. S. E. Onorato GaragesHawaii Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Midkiff v. Castle & Cooke, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Richards v. MidkiffHawaii Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Aku v. LewisHawaii Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Yamaguchi v. Queen's Medical CenterHawaii Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Fernandes v. TenbruggencateHawaii Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Technicolor, Inc. v. TraegerHawaii Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Gealon v. KealaHawaii Supreme Court · 1979

26 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