Peters v. Peters

48 Citing cases

  1. Lewis v. Lewis

    69 Haw. 497 (Haw. 1988)   Cited 80 times
    [citing Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981) ]

    We have moved away from the traditional and rigid conflict-of-laws rules in favor of the modern trend towards a more flexible approach looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter. See Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981). Primary emphasis is placed on deciding which state would have the strongest interest in seeing its laws applied to the particular case.

  2. Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp.

    545 F. Supp. 1117 (D. Haw. 1982)   Cited 4 times
    In Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp., 545 F. Supp. 1117 (D.Hawaii 1982), Peters was applied to determine that Hawaii substantive law should govern in a diversity wrongful death case arising from the death of a serviceman.

    Beyond peradventure, a federal court exercising its diversity jurisdiction must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits. E.g., Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). The choice of law in the instant case, therefore, is governed by the only Hawaii case that has adopted choice of law rules, Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653 (1981). Peters was a tort suit in which the choice of law question was whether to apply the inter-spousal tort immunity laws of Hawaii, where the injury occurred, or those of New York, where the parties were residents. Although the facts of Peters bear little relevant resemblance to those in this case, the choice of law principles articulated by the state supreme court nevertheless provide adequate guidance here.

  3. Mikelson v. United Services Auto. Ass'n

    107 Haw. 192 (Haw. 2005)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that where California policy included a geographical area provision providing coverage throughout the United States, Hawaii law applied to Hawaii accident involving insured who was a student at the University of Hawaii

    VII. A. As to the conflict of law issue, Plaintiff relies on Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 660, 634 P.2d 586, 591 (1981), and asserts that "there is a presumption that Hawaii law applies unless another state's law `would best serve the interests of the states and persons involved.'" This court has "moved away from the traditional and rigid conflict-of-laws rules in favor of the modern trend towards a more flexible approach looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter.

  4. Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp.

    785 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that nothing bars application of the res ipsa loquitur theory to strict liability in Hawaii

    McLinn, 739 F.2d at 1397-1403. Both parties correctly note that choice of law is controlled by Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981), the only Hawaii case on the issue.Peters creates a presumption that Hawaii law applies unless another state's law "would best serve the interests of the states and persons involved."

  5. Campo v. Taboada

    720 P.2d 181 (Haw. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming that UCATA created a right to contribution among joint tortfeasors that did not exist at common law, with no mention of intentional tort actions

    This is an interlocutory appeal by Third-Party Defendant-Appellant Maria Campo (Appellant) from an order denying her motion to dismiss. Appellant's motion claims that she was immunized from the third-party suit under our decision in Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981), which upheld the existence of interspousal tort immunity for direct suits between husband and wife. The motion was denied by the lower court. We affirm the decision of the lower court.

  6. Boblitz v. Boblitz

    296 Md. 242 (Md. 1983)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that, after "legislative passage and approval by the people of Article 46 of the Declaration of Rights, any ancient deprivation of rights based upon sex would contravene the basic law of this State"

    1. The unity of husband and wife. Peters v. Peters, 634 P.2d 586 (Hawaii 1981) 2. Interspousal tort actions will destroy the harmony of the marital relationship.

  7. Chen v. Hoeflinger

    127 Haw. 346 (Haw. Ct. App. 2012)

    In opposition, Hoeflinger first asserts that because the cohabitation occurred in the PRC, where cohabitation is supposedly illegal, Hawai‘i courts must not find the existence of a premarital economic partnership because “[n]either [party] could expect that their alleged premarital cohabitation in the PRC, deemed illegal by the laws of the PRC, would have any meaning to their divorce action in Hawaii.” Hoeflinger cites to Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981) in support of his argument. In Peters, a couple from New York on vacation was involved in a vehicular accident in Hawai‘i when Husband, driving a “U–Drive” vehicle, collided with a truck.

  8. Chen v. Hoeflinger

    279 P.3d 11 (Haw. Ct. App. 2012)

    In opposition, Hoeflinger first asserts that because the cohabitation occurred in the PRC, where cohabitation is supposedly illegal, Hawai‘i courts must not find the existence of a premarital economic partnership because "[n]either [party] could expect that their alleged premarital cohabitation in the PRC, deemed illegal by the laws of the PRC, would have any meaning to their divorce action in Hawaii." Hoeflinger cites to Peters v. Peters, 63 Haw. 653, 634 P.2d 586 (1981) in support of his argument.In Peters, a couple from New York on vacation was involved in a vehicular accident in Hawai‘i when Husband, driving a "U–Drive" vehicle, collided with a truck.

  9. St. James v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Corp.

    CIVIL 16-00529 LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Sep. 29, 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Mikelson to tort claims

    has "moved away from the traditional and rigid conflict-of-laws rules in favor of the modern trend towards a more flexible approach looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter." Lewis v. Lewis, 69 Haw. 497, 499, 748 P.2d 1362, 1365 (1988) (citing Peters [v. Peters], [63 Haw. 653, 660, 634 P.2d 586, 591 (1981)]). This flexible approach places "[p]rimary emphasis . . . on deciding which state would have the strongest interest in seeing its laws applied to the particular case." Id.

  10. Du Preez v. Banis

    CIVIL NO. 14-00171 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Jan. 30, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    has "moved away from the traditional and rigid conflict-of-laws rules in favor of the modern trend towards a more flexible approach looking to the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter." Lewis v. Lewis, 69 Haw. 497, 499, 748 P.2d 1362, 1365 (1988) (citing Peters [v. Peters], [63 Haw. 653, 660, 634 P.2d 586, 591 (1981)]). This flexible approach places "[p]rimary emphasis . . . on deciding which state would have the strongest interest in seeing its laws applied to the particular case."