Mizoguchi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that Sec. 294-2(10) as incorporated by Sec. 294-4(1)(B) imposes maximum aggregate limit of $15,000 in all cases where accidental harm results in death
• remanding for “additional evidence of work loss to support the judgment below” because the “only factual reference to decedent’s work loss [was] ... not supported by any affidavit as required under HRCP Rule 56(e)”
• remanding for \additional evidence of work loss to support the judgment below\ because the \only factual reference to decedent's work loss [was] ... not supported by any affidavit as required under HRCP Rule 56(e)\
• “statutory provisions regarding basic no-fault benefits set minimum benefits, which the parties are allowed to exceed”
• no-fault benefit paid pursuant to Sec. 294-4(1)(B)--as opposed to Sec. 294-11(a)(3)--must be paid to legal representative of decedent for benefit of surviving spouse and any dependents, where spouse or dependents survive
• no-fault benefit paid pursuant to § 294-4(l)(B) — as opposed to § 294-11(a)(3) — must be paid to legal representative of decedent for benefit of surviving spouse and any dependents, where spouse or dependents survive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).