Silva v. City and County of Honolulu

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 courts may resort to ... the use of legislative history as an interpretive tool” in “construing an ambiguous statute....”
• holding that “the courts may resort to . . . the use of legislative history as an interpretive tool” in “construing an ambiguous statute. . . .”
• discussing the effect of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 46-72 on the limitation period for tort claims against the City and concluding that the claims were governed by Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-7
• “[W]hile the notice requirement set forth in HRS § 46-72 may appear to be a mere ‘condition precedent to liability,’ it ‘operates, in reality, as a statute of limitations.’” (citations omitted)
• “When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.”
• “When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).