Territory v. Bansuelo

Hawaii Supreme Court

Territory v. Bansuelo

30 Haw. 908, 1929 Haw. LEXIS 51

Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided February 27, 1929·No. 1836·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a rehearing. The defendant, thinks we over]ooked certain questions that he presented and that we decided others erroneously. The questions which are thought to have escaped our attention were in fact duly considered and if they were not specifically mentioned in the opinion it was because we considered: that they were not of sufficient merit to require discussion. As to the questions the defendant thinks we decided erroneously, no sufficient reason is given in the petition for changing our views.

The petition is denied, without argument, under the rule.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a rehearing. The defendant, thinks we over]ooked certain questions that he presented and that we decided others erroneously. The questions which are thought to have escaped our attention were in fact duly considered and if they were not specifically mentioned in the opinion it was because we considered: that they were not of sufficient merit to require discussion. As to the questions the defendant thinks we decided erroneously, no sufficient reason is given in the petition for changing our views.

The petition is denied, without argument, under the rule.

Territory v. Bansuelo, 30 Haw. 908, 1929 Haw. LEXIS 51 (haw 1929).

Pincite

30 Haw. 908 (Territory v. Bansuelo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.