Legal Opinion

In Re the Estate of Herbert

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1999No. 16291PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

RAMIL, J.

On April 22, 1999, petitioner-proponent-appellant Hanno Soth, through his attorney, Arthur Reinwald, moved for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 53 1 and Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §560:3-720 (Supp. 1996 & Cum. Supp. 1998), 2 for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising out of the probate and appellate proceedings culminating in In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai’i 443, 979 P.2d 39 (1999).

Based upon the following, we deny Soth’s request, pursuant to HRS § 560:3-720, for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred on appeal and…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Warnek v. ABB Combustion Engineering Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1999
  2. McIntire v. McIntireSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  3. In Re Estate of HerbertHawaii Supreme Court · 1999
  4. In Re the Estate of RandallIdaho Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Piper Rudnick LLP v. HartzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. Enders v. ParkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Pierce v. MoletCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  4. In Re Estate of TorgersenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
  5. In re Andrews' Appeal from ProbateConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003

1 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