Dillingham Investment Corp. v. Kunio Yokoyama Trust

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that relief under HRCP Rule 60(b)(1), which is confined by the same statute of limitations as HRCP Rule 60(b)(3), was \unavailable to Appellants because they failed to file their motion within one year of the entry of the Judgment\
• holding that relief under HRCP Rule 60(b)(1), which is confined by the same statute of limitations as HRCP Rule 60(b)(3), was “unavailable to Appellants because they failed to file them motion within one year of the entry of the Judgment”
• holding there was no abuse of discretion where appellants wilfully failed to answer the complaint after determining that their land was not involved with the lawsuit
• holding there was no abuse of discretion where appellants wilfully failed to answer the complaint after determining that their land was not involved with the lawsuit
• claim under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) must be for reasons different than those set forth in HRCP Rules 60(b)(1) to (5)
• claim under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) must be for reasons different than those set forth in HRCP Rules 60(b)(1) to (5)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).