Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Hawaiian Telephone Company

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1973No. 5298Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF

ABE, J.

I concur with the substance of the opinion of my brother Kobayashi, and therefore also believe that the decisions and orders appealed from must be set aside. However, I find an additional important reason for setting aside the decisions and orders, not discussed by the opinion of my brother Kobayashi. Also, I feel that the terms of the order in the plurality opinion, with which order I concur only reluctantly, amount to an unwise exercise of our judicial power. Therefore, because of these substantial differences with the opinions of the other members…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation, a Hawaii Corporation v. Friendly Broadcasting Co., Inc., an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  3. City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1967
  5. In re the Hawaiian Electric Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1957

3 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