Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• making it difficult for anyone to meet the lack of “excusable neglect” requirement of HRCP Rule 60(b) motions
• making it difficult for anyone to meet the lack of “excusable neglect” requirement of HRCP Rule 60(b) motions
• \both intervening circumstances beyond the party's control and neglect on the part of the party are encompassed within the [Supreme] Court's interpretation of `excusable neglect'.\
• “both intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control and neglect on the part of the party are encompassed within the [Supreme] Court’s interpretation of ‘excusable neglect’.”
• “Nor does the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer Investment, which is regarded as having relaxed the ‘excusable neglect’ standard, ... suggest that ‘excusable neglect’ now encompasses ignorance of the rules.”
• “Thus, when considering a motion brought pursuant to HRAP Rule 4[ ], the trial court must first determine the cause of the delay in filing the notice of appeal ... the motion may be granted upon a showing of ‘good cause.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).