Szetela v. Discover Bank
97 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 222 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that an adhesive contract for credit card services was procedurally unconscionable, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' ability to acquire the same services elsewhere
State v. Kotis
91 Haw. 319 (Haw. 1999) Cited 115 timesHolding that the defendant "had the opportunity to raise the issue [(now challenged on appeal)] . . . in the circuit court, but he did not do so. Inasmuch as he is the party alleging error, it was his burden to raise the issue, and any ambiguity in the circuit court's d i n g may therefore be attributed to him"
Ditto v. Mccurdy
98 Haw. 123 (Haw. 2002) Cited 25 timesStating that "a determination of a question of law made by an appellate court in the course of an action becomes the law of the case and may not be disputed by a reopening of the question at a later stage of the litigation"
Almeida v. Correa
51 Haw. 594 (Haw. 1970) Cited 26 timesTaking judicial notice that an average pregnancy lasts approximately nine calendar months but that there are many individual variations in pregnancy length
Section 237-18 - Further provisions as to application of tax
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 237-18 Cited 7 times(a) Where a coin operated device produces gross income which is divided between the owner or operator of the device, on the one hand, and the owner or operator of the premises where the device is located, on the other hand, the tax imposed by this chapter shall apply to each such person with respect to the person's portion of the proceeds, and no more. (b) Where gate receipts or other admissions are divided between the person furnishing or producing a play, concert, lecture, athletic event, or similar