Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this court is \bound to construe statutes so as to avoid absurd results\ (citation omitted)
• stating that this court is “bound to construe statutes so as to avoid absurd results” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• stating that this court is \bound to construe statutes so as to avoid absurd results\ (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously
• stating that \[t]his court may `disregard [a] particular contention' if an appellant `makes no discernable argument in support of that position'\ (quoting Norton v. Admin. Dir. of the Court, 80 Hawai`i 197, 200, 908 P.2d 545, 548 (1995) (citations omitted)) (brackets in original)
• stating that “[t]his court may ‘disregard [a] particular contention’ if an appellant ‘makes no discemable argument in support of that position’ ” (quoting Norton v. Admin. Dir. of the Court, 80 Hawai'i 197, 200, 908 P.2d 545, 548 (1995) (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).