From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jun 16, 1960
353 P.2d 1007 (Haw. 1960)

Opinion

No. 4051.

June 16, 1960.

TSUKIYAMA, C.J., CASSIDY, WIRTZ, LEWIS, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE DYER IN PLACE OF MARUMOTO, J., DISQUALIFIED.

Leon L.M. Chun, Ingram M. Stainback and E.C. Peters for the petition.


On June 6, 1960, defendant-appellee filed a petition to reconsider the petition for rehearing denied May 31, 1960. Our rule limits the time for rehearing ( Matter of Estate of Campbell, 40 Haw. 640), and the right to file the petition for reconsideration is questionable. See Lane v. Fern, 20 Haw. 318- 319; Matter of Davis, 15 Haw. 724. Cf. You Goo Ho v. Ing, 43 Haw. 416.

The petition for rehearing was a reargument of points already considered, and was denied because we were not convinced of any need for further consideration. Lane v. Fern, supra; Territory v. Clark, 20 Haw. 405, 406; Robinson v. Honolulu Rapid Transit Land Co., 20 Haw. 466, 467; Lum v. Stevens, 42 Haw. 352; Territory v. Aquino, 43 Haw. 415.

Notwithstanding the questionable status of this petition under our rules, we have examined it and are of the opinion that it is without merit.

Petition denied.


Summaries of

Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jun 16, 1960
353 P.2d 1007 (Haw. 1960)
Case details for

Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN T. WATERHOUSE v. CAPITAL INVESTMENT CO., LTD., MAKAHA VALLEY FARMS…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Jun 16, 1960

Citations

353 P.2d 1007 (Haw. 1960)
353 P.2d 1007

Citing Cases

In Matter of Robinson

The right to file a second petition for rehearing after expiration of the time prescribed by Rule 5(a) of…