 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farzami v. State6/14/2002
should have granted his motion because he "could present the new evidence which was not discovered before and could prove the unlawful termination by the mployer." The Board denied Farzami's motion because "it has not been shown that the evidence that [Farzami] seeks to present is new and was not discoverable at the time of [the June 18, 1999] trial." We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Farzami's motion. Cf. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26-27 (1992) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's denial of a motion for reconsideration, and holding that " he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion" (citations omitted)).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 12, 2000 decision and order of the Board, and the Board's October 23, 2000 order denying Farzami's October 12, 2000 motion for reconsideration and for reopening to take further evidence, are affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|