Compass Development, Inc. v. Blevins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while “the failure of a plaintiff to institute selection of a trial date under RCCH Rule 12(c
• stating that the trial court has inherent power to “prevent undue delays and to achieve the orderly disposition of cases”
• reversing HRCP Rule 41(b) dismissal for want of prosecution because plaintiff had engaged in settlement conferences, had attempted to settle the matter out of court, and all that remained to be done was to choose a trial date
• finding the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal rule persuasive
• because HRCP Rule 41(b) is identical to FRCP Rule 41(b), the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal rule is persuasive
• because HRCP Rule 41(b) is identical to FRCP Rule 41(b), the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal rule is persuasive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).