Cites Tracy Development Co. v. . Becker — Tracy Development Co. v. Decker, 160 App. Div. 914, reversed. Tracy Development Co. v. Columbia Distilling Co., 160 App. Div. 914, reversed.
This case concerned a petition for rehearing filed in Bulatao v. Kauai Motors, Ltd., following an earlier decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The court denied the petition without argument or further elaboration in a per curiam order. The ruling addressed only the rehearing request and did not revisit or explain the underlying dispute between the parties.
The case concerned a father's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Hawaii to enforce an Oregon divorce decree and subsequent modification that awarded him custody of the couple's two minor children after the mother relocated with them to Hawaii. The Hawaii trial court dismissed the petition and awarded custody to the mother. The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed, holding that custody provisions in sister-state decrees are not entitled to full faith and credit because they remain subject to modification based on the children's welfare and changed circumstances, allowing the Hawaii court to independently assess the best interests of the children rather than being bound by the Oregon orders.
The case involved a plaintiff injured while exiting a car that stalled and caught fire eight days after repairs by the defendant garage; she sued in tort alleging negligence in the repairs, and a jury awarded her damages. On appeal, the defendant argued insufficient evidence of negligence to support the verdict. The Supreme Court of Hawaii found the expert testimony linking the fire to the repairs to be inconclusive circumstantial evidence that failed to rule out other possible causes, such as a foreign particle in the carburetor or issues with the fuel line. The court sustained the claim that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict but noted that entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not mandatory and a new trial may instead be ordered.
This case concerned the interpretation of a testamentary trust created by Grace Ingersoll Weill's will and codicil, specifically the distribution of net income following the deaths of primary beneficiaries including the testatrix's husband Eugene Weill, son Fred A. W. McNamarra, and grandson Robert Gordon McNamarra, Jr. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court's ruling and held that Fred's entire income share at death (his original one-third plus the acquired one-sixth) passed under subparagraph [a-3], with Robert Gordon Jr.'s issue taking one-half of that share as substitute takers under subparagraph [a-4]. The court reasoned that the will's language on income allocation to named family members and their issue, combined with rules of construction avoiding absurd or repugnant results, required this distribution rather than the lower court's approach. As a result, from Fred's death onward the income was to be split one-sixth to Barbara McNamarra King, five-twelfths equally among the Raymond children, and five-twelfths equally among the McNamarra children.
The case was an eminent domain action by the City of Honolulu to acquire two parcels of Waikiki beachfront property for a public park and beach, with the valuation date set as February 21, 1958. The City appealed from a judgment that incorporated a jury verdict on the value of Parcel 8 (including a building subject to a lease) along with stipulated amounts for improvements and the smaller Parcel 8-A, raising claims of error in the jury award and the inclusion of interest on stipulations. The court examined the presentation of expert testimony on valuation—primarily using income capitalization approaches—and the handling of stipulations and exhibits not shown to the jury, applying statutes requiring assessment of the property as a whole with separate valuation of improvements and providing for interest as part of just compensation.
The case was a personal injury and property damage action arising from a 1957 rear-end collision at a Honolulu T-intersection, in which the plaintiff's stopped car was struck by the defendant's business pickup truck operated by an employee who knew the brakes were defective and required pumping. The plaintiff appealed a defense verdict, contending the trial court erred by refusing requested jury instructions on following distances and on the duty to signal stops under the Honolulu Traffic Code when other vehicles or pedestrians might be affected. The Supreme Court examined the conflicting testimony about whether the plaintiff made a hand signal or stopped suddenly, the employee's observations and speed, and the applicability of traffic ordinances and common-law duties to decide the appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict.
