From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hong v. Kong

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jan 17, 1984
675 P.2d 769 (Haw. 1984)

Opinion

NO. 9092

January 17, 1984

APPEAL FROM FIRST CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE RONALD B. GREIG, JUDGE.

LUM, C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI AND WAKATSUKI, JJ.

Anson O. Rego for appellants Kong.

Harold W. Goble for appellee Hong.


This is an appeal in a civil case which was tried, jury-waived, and in which findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered.

In this case, the opening brief of the appellants does not attach the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 3(b)(4), Hawaii Supreme Court Rules (HSCR) nor does the brief quote the findings and conclusions complained of in the points of error as required by HSCR Rule 3(b)(5).

HSCR Rule 3(b) is designed so that briefs filed in compliance therewith will show clearly that there is appellate jurisdiction, what the rulings being appealed are, what the questions of law presented are, what the standard or standards of review are, and what the record reflects. It is a source of continuing vexation to the court that many, if not a majority of the briefs filed, do not even approximate compliance with the rule. We take the opportunity by this opinion to inform the Bar that henceforth in all cases of substantial non-compliance with HSCR Rule 3(b), whether by appellants or appellees, sanctions up to and including dismissal of the appeals will be levied.

In the particular case, the appellants' brief is stricken. Counsel for the appellants is ordered to file an amended opening brief within 15 days from the date hereof, fully complying with HSCR Rule 3(b). In addition, a fine of $500.00 is levied against appellants' counsel.


Summaries of

Hong v. Kong

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jan 17, 1984
675 P.2d 769 (Haw. 1984)
Case details for

Hong v. Kong

Case Details

Full title:KAREN N.H.L. HONG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LILY L.H. KONG and IVAN F.S…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Jan 17, 1984

Citations

675 P.2d 769 (Haw. 1984)
675 P.2d 769

Citing Cases

Laeroc Waikiki v. K.S.K

(Emphasis added.) Appellees cite Hong v. Kong, 67 Haw. 15, 15, 675 P.2d 769, 770 (1984) (where appellants'…

Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming Wright

Appellant Jenkins, pro se, did not file a statement of jurisdiction although he was required to do so by HRAP…