Legal Opinion

City and County of Honolulu v. Kam

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1965No. 4360PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

LEWIS, J.

This is a specific performance suit, filed on February 17,1960, to secure the carrying out of a compromise agreement between plaintiff and defendant’s decedent, which was made in 1955 in settlement of an eminent domain proceeding, as set out in Trask v. Kam, 44 Haw. 10, 15-16, 352 P.2d 320, 324. Plaintiff hereinafter is referred to as the “City,” and defendant sometimes is referred to as the “landowner.” Both parties have appealed from the judgment.

The making of the compromise agreement is not contested, nor is that portion of the judgment which requires that…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Albrecht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Cowdery v. London Etc. BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Kirkman v. VanlierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
  4. Stephens v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Savings Bank of Danbury v. LoeweSupreme Court of the United States · 1917

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Curnutt v. Scott Melvin Transport, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Hall v. Add-Ventures, Ltd.Alaska Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Pedrina v. Han Kuk ChunDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1995
  4. Kawauchi v. TabataHawaii Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Quedding v. Arisumi Bros., Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1983

10 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