Wilfred Chomatsu Tsukiyama

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.

procedure

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.

family lawfederal power

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

family lawproperty

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over the scope and use of an easement across a narrow 10-by-90-foot lot (Lot P) that provided access to garages on an adjacent dominant lot (Lot C) owned by the petitioner. The respondents, who held equitable title to the servient lot under an agreement of sale, filed a counterclaim alleging that the petitioner's use of the easement to serve multiple apartment buildings not on Lot C, along with associated parking, constituted an unlawful overburdening. After viewing the premises and considering stipulated facts, the trial court issued a declaratory judgment defining the parties' rights: the easement is appurtenant solely to Lot C, the petitioner may use it for reasonable ingress and egress with limited non-interfering parking, and the respondents may park on the lot only when it does not obstruct the petitioner's access. The core reasoning rested on the language of the original easement grant, which limited the right to the specified dominant estate, and on findings that the uses must remain reasonable and non-interfering with the other's established rights.

property

The case involved a former personnel director of the City and County of Honolulu suing the Civil Service Commission and the city after her 1957 dismissal, claiming that Act 207 unlawfully stripped her civil service tenure by exempting the position from protections. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, which the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the Act explicitly amended the law to exempt the personnel director role and bar the incumbent from retaining prior civil service status as of July 1, 1955. It reasoned that the legislature has authority to alter or abolish public positions and that civil service status does not create vested property rights subject to due process protections requiring notice or a hearing.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this 1965 Hawaii Supreme Court case, plaintiff Guanzon sued defendant Kalamau for personal injuries and property damage after Kalamau's car rear-ended Guanzon's stopped vehicle at a traffic light, allegedly due to brake failure on the borrowed Packard. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on grounds that the accident was unavoidable, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates only a rebuttable presumption that disappears once the defendant presents evidence explaining the incident without negligence; that violation of the city ordinance on vehicle brake maintenance does not constitute negligence per se absent proof the defendant knew or should have known of the defect; and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on unavoidable accident given the evidence of sudden brake failure without prior indication of problems. The court found no error in refusing the plaintiff's requested instructions on res ipsa loquitur or the ordinance's legal effect.

torts & liability

This civil case, filed in 1956 in the First Circuit Court, involved a complaint, answer, and counterclaim, with the matter placed on the ready trial calendar upon the filing of the answer to the counterclaim. In 1962, after a clerk's notice under revised court rules, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice under R.L.H. 1955, § 231-4, which defendants argued caused automatic dismissal six years after the case was at issue. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the statute did not effect an automatic dismissal. The court's reasoning relied on the historical background of the statute and related provisions from the Civil Code of 1859, which allowed courts to set their own rules for calendars under R.L.H. 1955, § 231-1, the pre-1960 practice of entering cases on the calendar without strict adherence to the issue date, and the 1960 rules requiring a Statement of Readiness that did not trigger the automatic dismissal provision in this instance.

procedure

This case concerned an action by a subcontractor to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on a leasehold and improvements for Capehart housing on U.S. government land, after the prime contractor and a related entity failed to fully pay for masonry and concrete work. The trial court entered judgment against defendants Sam Len and Aloha Construction Co., Inc. for the unpaid balance plus attorney’s fees and authorized foreclosure of the lien against the lease if the judgment remained unpaid. On appeal, the defendants challenged the proceeding on the ground that the Delaware corporation holding the lease—an indispensable party to any foreclosure—had never been served with process. The court held that the defendants possessed a sufficient interest to raise the service issue, given their direct liability for the judgment and fees under the mechanic’s lien statute as well as potential obligations under a performance bond, and therefore the absence of the indispensable party prevented enforcement of the lien.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a Hawaii County water board employee who was demoted for insubordination after refusing to answer his manager's direct questions about whether he had driven a county truck to an area outside his assigned work zone, instead filing a written grievance appeal demanding confrontation with his accuser. The Civil Service Commission upheld the demotion, and the circuit court affirmed that ruling. The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the undisputed facts showed a willful refusal to comply with a reasonable order from a superior, which constituted insubordination under the applicable standards, leaving the commission no choice but to sustain the discipline. The court rejected the employee's argument that filing the grievance satisfied his obligation to respond. The judgment affirming the demotion was affirmed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned the conviction of defendant George Kitashiro for first-degree larceny involving the theft and stripping of an automobile, where the primary evidence was his post-arrest confession. The trial court admitted the confession after a jury-waived trial, having deferred ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress and treating the preceding illegal search and seizure, arrest, and detention as mere factors in assessing voluntariness. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that the confession was inadmissible because it was induced by the illegal search and seizure when officers referenced the recovered parts to prompt the defendant to "tell the truth" en route to the station. The court found insufficient evidence that the confession had an independent voluntary origin separate from the taint of the unlawful police conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a condemnation proceeding initiated by the Territory of Hawaii in 1941 to acquire the sea fishery of Mokauea in Keehi Lagoon for a transpacific seaplane harbor, later becoming an action to quiet title after settlements with some claimants. Hawaiian Dredging Company settled its claims to fishing rights and potential land ownership, but Intervenors asserted undivided interests in both the fee simple title to the submerged lands and the associated konohiki fishing rights based on inheritance from the original awardee under L.C.A. 6450 and later conveyances. The court denied the Intervenors' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding no evidentiary support in the record for the claimed prior motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. On the merits, it entered judgments for the State, ruling that the Intervenors held no interests in the submerged land or fishing rights due to failures to register under the Organic Act, prior exclusive registrations by others, and deficiencies in the chain of title.

propertyprocedure

In this case involving a land title dispute, the plaintiff-appellee petitioned for rehearing after an earlier ruling that the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because the evidence showed acquisition of title by adverse possession as a matter of law. The court clarified that the defendant's motion for directed verdict at trial had referenced specific grounds given in chambers, with no objection by the plaintiff to any lack of specificity on the record, and that the procedural challenge under Rule 50(a) was not raised in briefing or argument. After considering the petition and reply, the court denied rehearing, holding that questions not advanced at the original hearing are not considered on rehearing absent unusual circumstances or fundamental error.

procedureproperty

The case involved a claim by an insured under an automobile insurance policy's medical payments coverage for expenses from a car accident. The insured had received treatment through a prepaid health plan without direct payment. The court held that the insured was entitled to recover under the policy because the medical services constituted expenses incurred on his behalf, even without personal obligation to pay, as the policy language did not require the insured to be legally obligated for the costs.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case concerned competing claims to funds that Terrace Developers owed to Acme Contractors: Honolulu Construction & Draying (HC&D) sued Terrace on an assignment of $18,198 from Acme, while State Tile, a judgment creditor of Acme, intervened to assert priority through an earlier garnishment served on Terrace. The trial court allowed State Tile to intervene without objection and addressed whether the unrecorded assignment defeated the garnishment. The court examined Chapter 187 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii, which requires filing notice of assignments to protect other creditors, and considered the procedural posture of the intervention and the absence of any return by Terrace to the garnishee summons. It concluded that the issue of the assignment's validity against the garnishment was properly before the court by consent and that the garnishment proceeding could have provided a forum for the same question.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of the State of Hawaii's motion to dismiss a partition action on sovereign immunity grounds. Plaintiffs, owners of most shares in certain hui land, sued for partition and named the State as a defendant, alleging possible State interests in a church lot, highway parcels conveyed in 1938, water rights, and other claims, but without alleging that the State was a tenant in common. The court held that the motion to dismiss should have been granted, as sovereign immunity bars suits against the State without its consent when it claims title or interests requiring adjudication of ownership, and the complaint lacked any allegation of cotenancy. The decision relied on precedents establishing that jurisdiction over the merits is ousted once the State asserts title, and partition suits cannot be used to try disputed titles against the sovereign.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over title to 32.73 acres of land in Maui, where the plaintiff sought to establish ownership and recover damages from the defendant for alleged wrongful withholding of the land, removal of a fence, and other claims. The defendant defended primarily on grounds of adverse possession, having used the land as pasture for cattle continuously for over 31 years, paying taxes, and excluding others. The trial court denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict, and the jury found for the plaintiff, but the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that the undisputed evidence established adverse possession as a matter of law, entitling the defendant to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court reasoned that the possession was actual, open, hostile, notorious, continuous, and exclusive, with no evidence of permission from the true owner, and that tax payments or a later deed acquisition did not undermine the claim.

property

The case concerned the construction of James Campbell's will and the distribution of undistributed trust income accumulated before the death of a life beneficiary, Kapiolani Campbell Field, who held a one-eighth share. The trustees sought instructions on whether that share should go to Field's estate or to the successor beneficiaries under the will. The court held that the executors of Field's estate were entitled to the balance of the one-eighth share of net income that would have been payable to her as of the day before her death, based on the will's provisions for periodic payments and annual accountings that treated accrued but undistributed income as due to the beneficiary up to the date of death.

propertyfamily lawprocedure