Cho v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on Soderlund, which relies on footnote one from Kunimoto (citing 96 Hawai‘i at 119 n.7, 26 P.3d at 1219 n.7)
• explaining that a motion for reconsideration \is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.\ (quoting Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai#i 505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000))
• “It is well-established that, in order for a plaintiff to prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff is required to prove all four of the necessary elements of negligence: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages.”
• “This court has defined ‘final order’ to mean ‘an order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. Consequently, an order is not final if the rights of a party involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for further action.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).