Legal Opinion

Strickland v. Seiple

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Decided April 25, 1984No. 9354; S.P. NO. 6000PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

TANAKA, J.

This is an appeal from the circuit court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. The dispositive issue is whether the arbitration award lacked sufficient definiteness to render it a final award so that the court erred in confirming it. We answer yes and reverse and remand.

A. Thomas Strickland (Strickland) and Ronald L. Seiple (Seiple) formed a partnership 1 to purchase and renovate a residence in Kaneohe. The partners agreed that Strickland would be entitled to 2/3 and Seiple to 1/3 of the net proceeds when the property was eventually sold. Differences arose…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mercury Oil Refining Co. v. Oil Workers International Union, CIO Oil Workers International Union, CIO v. Mercury Oil Refining CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951
  2. Mars Constructors, Inc. v. Tropical Enterprises, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Makahuena Corp.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1983
  4. University of Hawaii Professional Assembly v. University of HawaiiHawaii Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Brennan v. Stewarts' Pharmacies, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Board of Directors of the Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Tropicana Manor v. JeffersHawaii Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Wayland Lum Construction, Inc. v. KaneshigeHawaii Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Dorr, Keller, Bentley & Pecha v. Dorr, Bentley & PechaWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Schmidt v. Pacific Benefit Services, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Gozum v. American International Adjustment Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1991

2 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