Long v. Long

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that under HFCR Rule 37, the family court abused its discretion in entering a default decree against husband
• concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by summarily entering default against the defendant because “there was no notice to [the defendant] or his attorney prior to the conference that default was being considered”
• stating that Rule 54(c) requires that ‘“[a] judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount from that which was prayed for in the demand for judgment’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2003-07-29· cited 63×
• Berry v. Berry
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2012-05-11· cited 3×
• In the Interest of TW
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2011-01-31· cited 1×
• In Re Tw
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2011-03-02
• Impact Financial Services v. Kam'aina Termite & Pest Control, Inc.
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2008-09-29
• MD v. JR
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2022-07-29
• JK v. DK
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2022-11-30