Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Gurrobat v. HTH Corporation.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided February 25, 2014No. SCAP-12-0000764Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
ACOBA, J.,
in which POLLACK, J., joins.
It must be reaffirmed that because a violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 481B-14 (Supp.2000),1 which requires that a hotel or restaurant service charge be distributed to employees as tip income or that the contrary be disclosed to consumers, is “deemed” to be an unfair method of competition (also UMOC herein) under HRS § 481B-4 (Supp.2008),2 and thus “unlawful” under HRS § 480-2 (Supp.2002),3 employees as injured “persons” and consumers may sue for damages pursuant to HRS § 480-13 (Supp.2005),4 without alleging…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- State Oil Co. v. KhanSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Albrecht v. Herald Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v. Laupahoehoe Transportation Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.