Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-929-605-4013

Goo v. Arakawa

Document Justia Case Summary Cited authorities 13 Cited in 8 Precedent Map Related
Docket NumberSCWC-30142
Decision Date19 February 2014
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
7 cases
  • Hawaiiusa Fed. Credit Union v. Monalim
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • April 30, 2020
    ...decline to deviate from the basic principle of law that fact-finding should be left to the fact-finder. See also Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 304, 317, 321 P.3d 655, 668 (2014) ("[A] trial court is better equipped than an appellate court operating at a distance to fashion equitable relief.")......
  • Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Ass'n v. Cnty. of Maui & Maui Cnty. Council
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2020
    ...233] (1994) , that, in general, ‘mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review.’ See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 302 [304], 314, 321 P.3d 655, 665 (2014) ." We further observed that, as a practical matter, the parties had stipulated to vacate one of t......
  • In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated July 17
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2020
    ...appellate review, it is not the function of the appellate court to conduct its own evidentiary analysis. See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Hawai‘i 304, 317, 321 P.3d 655, 668 (2014) (holding that a fact-intensive inquiry is best handled by a trial court, not an appellate court, especially when the re......
  • Bridge Aina Le'A, LLC v. Haw. Land United Statese Comm'n, Civ. No. 11-00414 SOM-KJM
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • December 20, 2018
    ...the three prongs and is therefore not entitled to attorneys' fees under the private attorney general doctrine. See Goo v. Arakawa, 132 Haw. 304, 318, 321 P.3d 655, 669 (2014) ("All three prongs must be satisfied by the party seeking attorneys' fees."). 1. Prong One: Vindication of a Public ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT