Legal Opinion
Phillips v. KULA 200 II
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Decided July 19, 1983No. 8057; CIVIL NO. 3897PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
BURNS, C.J.
Defendant Kula 200 is a Hawaii limited partnership. In Phillips v. Kula 200, 2 Haw. App. 206, 629 P.2d 119 (1981) (hereinafter referred to as “Kula 200 Derivative”), we permitted 2.78% of Kula 200’s limited partners to derivatively assert a breach of fiduciary duty action for damages against Kula 200, its two general partners, and one of its limited partners. Kula 200 Derivative has not yet been tried. In this case (hereinafter referred to as “Kula 200 Individual”), 18.75% of Kula 200’s limited partners 1 individually asserted against the same defendants the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Klebanow v. New York Produce ExchangeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Phillips v. Kula 200, Wick Realty, Inc.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1981
3Cited by7 opinions
- Semegen v. WeidnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- General Edgar G. Doleman, U.S. Army (Retired), Lorrin Dolim, and Robert Rinker v. Meiji Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Japanese CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Bankston v. BurchCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Golden Tee, Inc. v. Venture Golf Schools, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
- Block v. LeaHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.