Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 2006No. 26715Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

ACOBA, J.

I concur with upholding the grant of summary judgment by the first circuit court (the court) on the ground that the basic propositions set out by the majority were first set out in Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970), and have been restated in *24subsequent eases. However, I respectfully dissent as to the majority's limitation on the “equities” that may be considered by trial courts under the express grant of discretion given by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 607-9 (1993). For that reason I would remand on the question of costs.

I

First…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. John D. Chapman v. Ai TransportCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
  2. Milo John Munson v. Wendell R. Friske, John Rybak, Jr., Kenneth Todd, and Ashland CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  3. Rodrigues v. StateHawaii Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Stanley v. University of Southern CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. Fantasy, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. John C. FogertyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996

14 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