Wright v. Chatman

5 Citing cases

  1. Omerod v. Heirs

    116 Haw. 239 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 55 times
    Stating that due to the brief's non-compliance with HRAP Rule 28(b) —which would require the court to sift through the more than 6,000 page record to determine the specific errors—the points of error regarding the lower court's decision would be disregarded

    Moreover, citing to the entire factual portion of the Decision and Order as erroneous, with no elaboration as to the nature of the errors, ignores the proper role of the appellate process.See Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw.App. 74, 76, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981) ("Noncompliance forces this court to speculate on the what and the why of the appeal. It also forces us to do the work that is more properly done by the appellant."). Further, this court is not obligated to sift through the record, which in this case comprises nineteen volumes totaling more than 6,000 pages, in order to determine the specific nature of the errors asserted but not documented. Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawaii 296, 309 n. 31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n. 31 (2004) ("This court is not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify an appellant's inadequately documented contentions."

  2. Airgo, Inc. v. Horizon Cargo Transport, Inc.

    66 Haw. 590 (Haw. 1983)   Cited 59 times
    Adopting the Rest.2d position

    Noncompliance forces this Court to speculate on the what and the why of the appeal and in the appropriate case can result in a dismissal of the entire appeal. Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981). A.

  3. In re Marn Family Litig.

    297 P.3d 1125 (Haw. Ct. App. 2013)

    To the latter point, the ICA has explained, “Noncompliance forces this court to speculate on the what and the why of the appeal. It also forces us to do the work that is more properly done by the appellant.” Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw.App. 74, 76, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981); see also Sanchez v. Miller, 792 F.2d 694, 703 (7th Cir.1986) (“[I]t is not the obligation of this court to research and construct the legal arguments open to parties.”). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explained the rationale for the reluctance of the courts to construct legal arguments on behalf of the parties as follows, “[t]o do so would not only strain judicial resources ... but would also transform the [ ]court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.”

  4. International Savings Loan v. Rufus Thames

    24004 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2002)

    The failure by Thames to conform his opening brief to the requirements of HRAP Rule 28(b) burdens ISL in preparing its response to his opening brief, burdens the appellate court in attempting to render an informed judgment, and "forces [the appellate] court to speculate on the what and the why of the appeal. It also forces [the appellate court] to do the work that is more properly done by the appellant." Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981). Such noncompliance is sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.

  5. Williams v. Hawaii Housing Authority

    5 Haw. App. 325 (Haw. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times

    Rule 3(b)(5) requires concise statements of errors committed by the tribunal appealed from, whether administrative or judicial, how the issue was raised below, and where in the record such action is shown. Airgo, Inc. v. Horizon Cargo Transport, Inc., 66 Haw. 590, 670 P.2d 1277 (1983); In re Miller and Lieb Water Co., 65 Haw. 310, 651 P.2d 486 (1982); Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 625 P.2d 1060 (1981). Now part of Rule 28, Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective June 1, 1984.