Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the \court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant has failed to present discernible arguments\
• holding that the \court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant has failed to present discernible arguments\
• holding that a court-appointed receiver is entitled to absolute immunity when acting within the scope of and in accordance with the appointment order, even for “negligent violations of duties imposed upon her by law”
• stating that \an appellate court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant has failed to present discernible arguments.\
• stating that \an appellate court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant has failed to present discernible arguments\ (citing HRAP Rule 28(b)(7))
• stating that \an appellate court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant has failed to present discernible arguments.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).