Chmill v. City of Pittsburgh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an HRCP Rule 60 motion could be treated as an HRCP Rule 59(e) post- judgment tolling motion for purposes of HRAP Rule 4(a)(4) -– the predecessor rule to HRAP Rule 4(a)(3
• reiterating that “a contested case is an agency hearing that 1
• agency hearing required by law when mandated by statute, rule or constitutional due process
• agency hearing required by law when mandated by statute, rule or constitutional due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).