 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toney v. Fauhiva10/28/2005
aims, the jury special verdict entered on March 3, 2004 and good cause appearing therefor;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. Final Judgment is entered in favor of [Fauhiva] with respect to all of [the Toneys'] claims and that [the Toneys] recover nothing herein.
2. All other claims asserted in Civil No. 02-1-0229K not specifically identified above are dismissed with prejudice.
3. There are no further claims or parties in Civil No. 02-1-0229K.
On April 7, 2004, Fauhiva filed a motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs. On June 10, 2004, the circuit court entered its Order Granting in Part [Fauhiva's] Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees awarding Fauhiva $8,245.25 for costs and $5,745.00 for attorney fees. A Judgment to this effect was entered on July 14, 2004.
The Toneys filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 2004. An amended notice of appeal was subsequently filed on July 20, 2004. The appeal was assigned to this court on December 20, 2004.
POINTS ON APPEAL
In their opening brief, the Toneys contend:
A. The Circuit Court below erred in granting [Fauhiva's] motion for a directed verdict by its ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEMOTO "RAY" FAUHIVA dba HAWAIIAN ISLE MASONRY'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' HAWAII REVISED STATUES § 444-25.5 CLAIMS entered on March 3 , 2004. . . .
B. The Circuit Court below erred in denying PLAINTIFFS BRYAN TONEY AND LILIBETH TONEY'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, . . . which was by implication denied by ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEMOTO "RAY" FAUHIVA dba HAWAIIAN ISLE MASONRY'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' HAWAII REVISED STATUES § 444-25.5 CLAIMS entered on March 3 , 2004, . . . .
C. The Circuit Court below erred in entering its Final Judgment entered on June 16, 2004, and its Judgment entered on July 14, 2004, by not including awards in [the Toneys'] favor as provided for by H.R.S § 444-25.5 and particularly subsection d) thereof, and H.R.S. Chapter 480.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Directed Verdict Hawaii appellate courts review, de novo, a trial court's rulings on directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) motions. In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawaii 443, 454, 979 P.2d 39, 50 (1999).
The test of the validity of a directed verdict is whether the evidence is such that, after giving to plaintiffs' evidence all value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in plaintiffs' favor, it can be said that there is no evidence to support a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor.
Lang v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 4 Haw. App. 237, 244, 663 P.2d 640, 644-45 (1983).
Verdicts based on conflicting evidence will not be set aside where there is substantial evidence to support the jury's findings. We have defined "substantial evidence" as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.
In deciding a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, the evidence and the inferences which may be fairly drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and either motion may be granted only where there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.
Nelson v. Univ. of Hawaii, 97 Hawaii 376, 393, 38 P.3d 95, 112 (2001) (brackets omitted) (quoting Carr v. Strode, 79 Hawaii 475, 486, 904 P.2d 489, 500 (1995)).
Statutory Interpretation
Questions of statutory interpreta
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|