Legal Opinion

Carlisle v. ONE (1) BOAT

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Decided February 27, 2008No. 26995PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

RECKTENWALD, C.J.

Petitioner-Appellant Peter B. Carlisle, in his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai'i (the State), filed a Verified Petition for Forfeiture seeking to forfeit property including a boat. That property was allegedly used to commit intentional violations of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §§ 13-95-70, entitled Stony corals, and 13-95-71, entitled Live rocks.

Claimants/Interested Persons-Appellees Dang Van Tran (Dang) and Sang Tran (Sang) (collectively, Claimants) filed a motion…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. State v. NakataHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Camara v. AgsaludHawaii Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & WrightHawaii Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carlisle v. One (1) BoatHawaii Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Estate of Roxas v. MarcosHawaii Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Bowen v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API