§

Amantiad v. Odum

90 Haw. 152 (Haw. 1999)
Amantiad v. Odum

117 Citing cases

  1. Standard Management, Inc. v. Kekona

    99 Haw. 125 (Haw. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that "the purely subjective, or secret, intent of a party in assenting is irrelevant in an inquiry into the contractual intent of the parties"

    "The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Haw. 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). B. HRCP Rule 60(b) Motions.

  2. State v. Pesentheiner

    95 Haw. 290 (Haw. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the defendant's act of knocking a police officer's hat off his head was "offensive physical contact" under HRS § 711–1106

    Id. at 221-22, 941 P.2d at 304-05 (original brackets and citation omitted) (brackets added).Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Haw. 152, 160-61, 977 P.2d 160, 168-69 (1999). III. Discussion.

  3. State v. Honolulu University of Arts

    110 Haw. 504 (Haw. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the defendant "could and should have raised its . . . argument in its memorandum in opposition to the [plaintiff]'s motion for relief or at the hearing on the [plaintiff]'s motion for relief inasmuch as reconsideration is not a device to raise arguments that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding"

    Honolulu University argues that "it is well established that[,] unless the `vacatur is first granted,' the court would have no jurisdiction to enter any remedial orders in the case." In support of the foregoing contention, Honolulu University relies on Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai`i 152, 977 P.2d 160 (1999). The OCP contends that "[c]ourts generally retain jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement of a judgment[.

  4. Dharia v. Marriott Hotel Servs. Inc.

    CV 18-00008 HG-WRP (D. Haw. Jun. 28, 2019)

    A settlement agreement must have the traditional elements of a contract: offer and acceptance, consideration, and parties who have the capacity and authority to enter into the settlement agreement. Amantiad v. Odum, 977 P.2d 160, 170 (Haw. 1999). There must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential elements or terms of the contract.

  5. Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Ass'n v. Cnty. of Maui

    465 P.3d 991 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of a cause of action. ... A judgment rendered by a circuit court without subject matter jurisdiction is void." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai‘i 152, 159, 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999) (citations omitted). B. Interpretation of statutes and ordinances

  6. Korean Temple v. Concerned Citizens

    107 Haw. 371 (Haw. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that circuit court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction, retaining jurisdiction solely to correct court's error in assuming jurisdiction, and thereby remanding to the circuit court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

    "The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai`i 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai`i 238, 241, 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Regarding appellate jurisdiction, this court has noted,

  7. Hawai'i Mgmt. Alliance Ass'n v. Ins. Comm'r

    106 Haw. 21 (Haw. 2004)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that the insurance commissioner's authority to hear external review appeals, as authorized by statute, was a question of subject matter jurisdiction

    Chun v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 73 Haw. 9, 14, 828 P.2d 260, 263 (1992). See also Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 159, 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999) ("When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction."). We therefore consider these questions because they address the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the circuit court.

  8. Ditto v. McCurdy

    103 Haw. 153 (Haw. 2003)   Cited 130 times
    Holding that trial court's order on a post-judgment motion was a final order for appeal purposes

    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A circuit court's determination of an HRCP Rule 60 motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Haw. 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (citing Island Ins. Co., Inc. v. Santos, 86 Haw. 363, 366, 949 P.2d 203, 206 (App. 1997) (citing Richardson v. Lane, 6 Haw. App. 614, 622, 736 P.2d 63, 69, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 953 (1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 1037 (1988)). III. DISCUSSION

  9. UCKO v. ROBBINS

    25912 (Haw. Oct. 20, 2003)

    Granted, when all of the parties stipulate to the dismissal of claims pursuant to HRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(B), "a separate judgment is neither required nor authorized, inasmuch as a plaintiff's dismissal of an action [pursuant to HRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(B)], by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties, is effective without order of the court." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Haw. 152, 158 n. 7, 977 P.2d 160, 266 n. 7 (1999) (internal quotation marks and original brackets omitted) (emphasis added). In contrast, the parties in this case stipulated to the dismissal of the counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims by court order pursuant to HRCP Rule 41(a)(2).

  10. Matsuura v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.

    102 Haw. 149 (Haw. 2003)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that litigation privilege does not "limit liability in a subsequent proceeding where there is an allegation of fraud committed in the prior proceeding"

    DuPont argues that preventing a party from being held liable in a subsequent, collateral proceeding for litigation conduct, including fraud, encourages settlement. Quoting Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Haw. 152, 161-62, 977 P.2d 160, 169-71 (1999), in support of its argument, DuPont states: We acknowledge the well-settled rule that the law favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation.