In re Robinson

423 P.2d 437, 49 Haw. 574

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Robinson. Read the opinion of the Court — 51 Haw. 164 →

Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided February 6, 1967·No. No. 4234·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The right to file a second petition for rehearing after expiration of the time prescribed by Rule 5(a) of this court is questionable. See In the Matter of Davis, 15 Haw. 724; Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co., 44 Haw. 311, 353 P.2d 1016. At all events the petition is without merit and is denied.

Cassidy and Wirtz, JJ., having dissented from the majority in the original opinion, do not join in the disposition of the petition on the merits.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Cassidy and Wirtz, JJ., having dissented from the majority in the original opinion, do not join in the disposition of the petition on the merits.

In re Robinson, 423 P.2d 437, 49 Haw. 574 (haw 1967).

Pincite

423 P.2d 437 (In re Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.

44 Haw. 311 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1960)

Opinion

Related