In the Interest of Doe Children

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that when there is a conflict between a court rule and a statute, the statute is controlling
• holding that HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) cannot be construed “in such a way as to modify the requisite deadline for filing an HRS § 571–54 motion for reconsideration and the subsequent notice of appeal,” and thus, “HRAP Rule 4(a)(3
• holding that statute setting filing deadlines conferred substantive right
• rendering “HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) . . . inapplicable to family court cases governed by HRS § 571–54” without going through the amendment process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).